Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)
Author: Calvin, John, 1509-1564
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)" ***

Institutes of the Christian Religion

John Calvin

Translated from the original Latin, and collated with the author’s last
edition in French,

by John Allen

Sixth American Edition, Revised and Corrected.

In Two Volumes.

Vol. I.

Philadelphia:

Presbyterian Board of Publication

1813

CONTENTS

Advertisement.
The Translator’s Preface.
The Author’s Preface to An Edition Published In The Year 1559, With His
Last Corrections And Additions.
Dedication.
General Syllabus.
Book I. On The Knowledge Of God The Creator.
Argument.
Chapter I. The Connection Between The Knowledge Of God And The
Knowledge Of Ourselves.
Chapter II. The Nature And Tendency Of The Knowledge Of God.
Chapter III. The Human Mind Naturally Endued With The Knowledge Of God.
Chapter IV. This Knowledge Extinguished Or Corrupted, Partly By
Ignorance, Partly By Wickedness.
Chapter V. The Knowledge Of God Conspicuous In The Formation And
Continual Government Of The World.
Chapter VI. The Guidance And Teaching Of The Scripture Necessary To
Lead To The Knowledge Of God The Creator.
Chapter VII. The Testimony Of The Spirit Necessary To Confirm The
Scripture, In Order To The Complete Establishment Of Its Authority. The
Suspension Of Its Authority On The Judgment Of The Church, An Impious
Fiction.
Chapter VIII. Rational Proofs To Establish The Belief Of The Scripture.
Chapter IX. The Fanaticism Which Discards The Scripture, Under The
Pretence Of Resorting To Immediate Revelations, Subversive Of Every
Principle Of Piety.
Chapter X. All Idolatrous Worship Discountenanced In The Scripture, By
Its Exclusive Opposition Of The True God To All The Fictitious Deities
Of The Heathen.
Chapter XI. Unlawfulness Of Ascribing To God A Visible Form. All
Idolatry A Defection From The True God.
Chapter XII. God Contradistinguished From Idols, That He May Be Solely
And Supremely Worshipped.
Chapter XIII. One Divine Essence, Containing Three Persons; Taught In
The Scriptures From The Beginning.
Chapter XIV. The True God Clearly Distinguished In The Scripture From
All Fictitious Ones By The Creation Of The World.
Chapter XV. The State Of Man At His Creation, The Faculties Of The
Soul, The Divine Image, Free Will, And The Original Purity Of His
Nature.
Chapter XVI. God’s Preservation And Support Of The World By His Power,
And His Government Of Every Part Of It By His Providence.
Chapter XVII. The Proper Application Of This Doctrine To Render It
Useful To Us.
Chapter XVIII. God Uses The Agency Of The Impious, And Inclines Their
Minds To Execute His Judgments, Yet Without The Least Stain Of His
Perfect Purity.
Book II. On The Knowledge Of God The Redeemer In Christ, Which Was
Revealed First To The Fathers Under The Law, And Since To Us In The
Gospel.
Argument.
Chapter I. The Fall And Defection Of Adam The Cause Of The Curse
Inflicted On All Mankind, And Of Their Degeneracy From Their Primitive
Condition. The Doctrine Of Original Sin.
Chapter II. Man, In His Present State, Despoiled Of Freedom Of Will,
And Subjected To A Miserable Slavery.
Chapter III. Every Thing That Proceeds From The Corrupt Nature Of Man
Worthy Of Condemnation.
Chapter IV. The Operation Of God In The Hearts Of Men.
Chapter V. A Refutation Of The Objections Commonly Urged In Support Of
Free Will.
Chapter VI. Redemption For Lost Man To Be Sought In Christ.
Chapter VII. The Law Given, Not To Confine The Ancient People To
Itself, But To Encourage Their Hope Of Salvation In Christ, Till The
Time Of His Coming.
Chapter VIII. An Exposition Of The Moral Law
The First Commandment.
The Second Commandment.
The Third Commandment.
The Fourth Commandment.
The Fifth Commandment.
The Sixth Commandment.
The Seventh Commandment.
The Eighth Commandment.
The Ninth Commandment.
The Tenth Commandment.
Chapter IX. Christ, Though Known To The Jews Under The Law, Yet Clearly
Revealed Only In The Gospel.
Chapter X. The Similarity Of The Old And New Testaments.
Chapter XI. The Difference Of The Two Testaments.
Chapter XII. The Necessity Of Christ Becoming Man In Order To Fulfil
The Office Of Mediator.
Chapter XIII. Christ’s Assumption Of Real Humanity.
Chapter XIV. The Union Of The Two Natures Constituting The Person Of
The Mediator.
Chapter XV. The Consideration Of Christ’s Three Offices, Prophetical,
Regal, And Sacerdotal, Necessary To Our Knowing The End Of His Mission
From The Father, And The Benefits Which He Confers On Us.
Chapter XVI. Christ’s Execution Of The Office Of A Redeemer To Procure
Our Salvation. His Death, Resurrection, And Ascension To Heaven.
Chapter XVII. Christ Truly And Properly Said To Have Merited The Grace
Of God And Salvation For Us.
Book III. On The Manner Of Receiving The Grace Of Christ, The Benefits
Which We Derive From It, And The Effects Which Follow It.
Argument.
Chapter I. What Is Declared Concerning Christ Rendered Profitable To Us
By The Secret Operation Of The Spirit.
Chapter II. Faith Defined, And Its Properties Described.
Chapter III. On Repentance.
Chapter IV. The Sophistry And Jargon Of The Schools Concerning
Repentance, Very Remote From The Purity Of The Gospel. On Confession
And Satisfaction.
Chapter V. Indulgences And Purgatory. The Supplements To Their Doctrine
Of Satisfactions.
Chapter VI. The Life Of A Christian. Scriptural Arguments And
Exhortations To It.
Chapter VII. Summary Of The Christian Life. Self‐Denial.
Chapter VIII. Bearing The Cross, Which Is A Branch Of Self‐Denial.
Chapter IX. Meditation On The Future Life.
Chapter X. The Right Use Of The Present Life And Its Supports.
Chapter XI. Justification By Faith. The Name And Thing Defined.
Chapter XII. A Consideration Of The Divine Tribunal, Necessary To A
Serious Conviction Of Gratuitous Justification.
Chapter XIII. Two Things Necessary To Be Observed In Gratuitous
Justification.
Footnotes

[Cover Art]

[Transcriber’s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter
at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]

ADVERTISEMENT.

The Presbyterian Board of Publication, in introducing to the public a new
edition of the inimitable “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” do not
wish to be regarded as adopting all the sentiments and forms of expression
of the venerated writer; although they agree with him in his general
views, and admire the skill and learning with which he has pointed out the
relative positions and bearings of the great doctrines of revelation.
Calvin was better qualified than any of his contemporaries, to present
revealed truth in a connected and systematic form. His great natural
abilities, his profound erudition, his well balanced and discriminating
judgment, and his habits of diligent investigation, eminently fitted him
to prepare such a work as the “Institutes,” in which the doctrines of the
gospel are so clearly developed and harmonized, that the system has been
closely associated with his name, from the period of its publication until
the present time.

The honour of Calvin consisted, not in suggesting ingenious theories and
speculations, but in his general accuracy in interpreting the Holy
Scriptures, and in detecting and pointing out the connection of Scripture
doctrines, which, instead of being insulated, were shown to occupy their
respective places in forming a complete and perfect system of Divine
truth. The doctrines embraced in the formularies of the Presbyterian
Church are termed Calvinistic, from their general accordance with Calvin’s
interpretation of scriptural truth; but the admission of this term, as
explanatory of their general character, is not understood as by any means
implying an entire coincidence in the views of Calvin, or a submission to
his authority as an umpire in theological controversies. Although a
learned and pious, he was a fallible man; and his opinions, although
deserving of profound respect, are not to be blindly followed.

While admitting that the “Institutes,” considering the times and
circumstances in which they were written, form an invaluable body of
divinity, still it must be acknowledged, that some of the doctrines
therein maintained have been more luminously set forth in modern times. We
would especially mention as an instance the doctrine of justification
through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Some of the expressions of
Calvin on the subject of reprobation may be regarded as too unqualified,
and we can no further endorse them than as they are incorporated in the
Presbyterian Confession of Faith. The most decidedly objectionable feature
in the “Christian Institutes,” is to be found in the explanation of the
Fourth Commandment, where the author asserts the abrogation of the
Sabbath. In Calvin’s view, this ordinance was a mere type of better
blessings, and, with the types and ceremonies of the old dispensation, was
done away by the introduction of a new and better dispensation. In this
opinion there can be no doubt that he greatly erred; and so universal is
the conviction of the Church on the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as
a moral institution, that no danger is to be apprehended from a contrary
view, even under the sanction of so great a name as that of Calvin. In
justice to his opinion on this subject, however, it should be stated, that
he distinctly recognized not only the propriety but the necessity of a
consecration of stated days for public religious services, without which
regulation, he declares that “it is so far from being possible to preserve
order and decorum, that if it were abolished, the Church would be in
imminent danger of immediate convulsion and ruin.” It is much to be
lamented that so great a mind should have been led astray on so important
a point by attempting to avoid an opposite extreme.

The Board of Publication have been induced to undertake this edition, by
the very generous offer of the First and Second Presbyterian Churches in
Baltimore, of which the Rev. John Backus and the Rev. Dr. R. J.
Breckinridge are respectively Pastors, to defray the expense of
stereotyping the work. Under the direction of the Executive Committee of
the Board, the translation has been diligently compared throughout with
the original Latin and French, and various corrections have been made to
convey the meaning of the author more distinctly and accurately. This
laborious duty has been performed by a member of the Publishing Committee.
The intrinsic excellence of the work, taken in connection with the
attractive style, and comparative cheapness, of the present edition,
induces the Committee to hope, that it may be widely circulated and
carefully studied, both by the clergy and laymen of the Presbyterian
Church.

In behalf of the Executive Committee,

William M. Engles, EDITOR.

THE TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

The English Reader is here presented with a translation of one of the
principal theological productions of the sixteenth century. Few persons,
into whose hands this translation is likely to fall, will require to be
informed that the Author of the original work was one of an illustrious
triumvirate, who acted a most conspicuous part in what has been generally
and justly denominated THE REFORMATION. Of that important revolution in
ecclesiastical affairs, so necessary to the interests of true religion,
and productive of such immense advantages even to civil society, LUTHER,
ZUINGLE, and CALVIN, were honoured, by the providence of God, to be the
most highly distinguished instruments. It is no degradation to the memory
of the many other ornaments of that age, to consider them as brilliant
satellites in the firmament of the Church, revolving round these primary
luminaries, to whom they were indebted for much of that lustre which they
diffused over the earth; while they were all together revolving around one
and the same common centre, though, it must be confessed, with
considerable varieties of approximation, velocity, and obliquity in their
courses; yet all deriving more or less copious communications of light
from the great Sun of the moral system, THE TRUE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

Differing in the powers of their minds, as well as in the temperament of
their bodily constitutions, placed in different circumstances, and called
to act in different scenes, these leading Reformers, though engaged in the
same common cause, displayed their characteristic and peculiar
excellences; which, it is no disparagement of that cause to admit, were
likewise accompanied by peculiar failings. It is not the design of this
preface to portray and discriminate their respective characters. They
alike devoted their lives and labours to rescue Christianity from the
absurdities, superstitions, and vices by which it had been so deplorably
deformed, mutilated, and obscured, and to recall the attention of mankind
from the doubtful traditions of men to the unerring word of God. But while
they were all distinguished Reformers, Calvin has been generally
acknowledged to have been the most eminent theologian of the three.

Such was the superiority of the talents and attainments of Calvin to those
of most other great men, that the strictest truth is in danger of being
taken for exaggeration. It is impossible for any candid and intelligent
person to have even a slight acquaintance with his writings, without
admiring his various knowledge, extensive learning, profound penetration,
solid judgment, acute reasoning, pure morality, and fervent piety.

His COMMENTARIES on the Scriptures have been celebrated for a juster
method of exposition than had been exhibited by any preceding writer.
Above a hundred years after his death, Poole, the author of the Synopsis,
in the preface to that valuable work, says, “Calvin’s Commentaries abound
in solid discussions of theological subjects, and practical improvements
of them. Subsequent writers have borrowed most of their materials from
Calvin, and his interpretations adorn the books even of those who repay
the obligation by reproaching their master.” And nothing can more
satisfactorily evince the high estimation to which they are still entitled
from the biblical student, than the following testimony, given, after the
lapse of another century, by the late learned Bishop Horsley: “I hold the
memory of Calvin in high veneration: his works have a place in my library;
and in the study of the Holy Scriptures, he is one of the commentators
whom I frequently consult.”

But perhaps, of all the writings of Calvin, none has excited so much
attention as his INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

His original design in commencing this work is stated by himself, in the
beginning of his dedication, to have been to supply his countrymen, the
French, with an elementary compendium for their instruction in the
principles of true religion. But we learn from Beza that, by the time of
its completion, existing circumstances furnished the Author with an
additional motive for sending it into the world, during his residence at
Basil, whither he had retired to avoid the persecution which was then
raging in France against all the dissentients from the Church of Rome.
Francis the First, king of France, courted the friendship of the
Protestant princes of Germany; and knowing their detestation of the
cruelties which he employed against his subjects of the reformed religion,
he endeavoured to excuse his conduct by alleging that he caused none to be
put to death except some few fanatics; who, so far from taking the word of
God as the rule of their faith, gave themselves up to the impulses of
their disordered imaginations, and even openly avowed a contempt of
magistrates and sovereign princes. Unable to bear such foul aspersions of
his brethren, Calvin determined on the immediate publication of this
treatise, which he thought would serve as an answer to the calumnies
circulated by the enemies of the truth, and as an apology for his pious
and persecuted countrymen.

The Dedication to Francis is one of the most masterly compositions of
modern times. The purity, elegance, and energy of style; the bold, yet
respectful, freedom of address; the firm attachment to the Divine word;
the Christian fortitude in the midst of persecution; the triumphant
refutation of the calumnies of detractors; with other qualities which
distinguish this celebrated remonstrance, will surely permit no reader of
taste or piety to withhold his concurrence from the general admiration
which it has received.

The Author composed this treatise in Latin and French, and though, at its
first appearance, it was little more than an outline of what it afterwards
became, it was received with uncommon approbation, and a second edition of
it was soon required. How many editions it passed through during his life,
it is difficult, if not impossible, now to ascertain; but it obtained a
very extensive circulation, and was reprinted several times, and every
time was further improved and enlarged by him, till, in the year 1559,
twenty‐three years after the first impression, he put the finishing hand
to his work, and published it in Latin and French, with his last
corrections and additions.

The circulation which it enjoyed was not confined to persons capable of
reading it in the languages in which it was written. It was translated
into High Dutch, Low Dutch, Italian, and Spanish.

Soon after the publication of the Author’s last edition, it was translated
from the Latin into English. In this language it appears to have reached
six editions in the life of the Translator. A reflection on the small
number of persons who may be supposed to have had inclination and ability
to read such a book at that period, compared with the number of readers in
the present age, may excite some wonder that there should have been a
demand for so many editions. But no surprise at this circumstance will be
felt by any person acquainted with the high estimation in which the works
of the Author were held by the venerable Reformers of the Church of
England, and their immediate successors, as well as by the great majority
of religious people in this country. This is not a question of opinion,
but an undeniable fact. Dr. Heylin, the admirer and biographer of
Archbishop Laud, speaking of the early part of the seventeenth century,
says, that Calvin’s “Book of Institutes was, for the most part, the
foundation on which the young divines of those times did build their
studies.” The great Dr. Saunderson, who was chaplain to King Charles I.,
and, after the restoration of Charles II., was created Bishop of Lincoln,
says, “When I began to set myself to the study of divinity as my proper
business, Calvin’s Institutions were recommended to me, as they were
generally to all young scholars in those times, as the best and perfectest
system of divinity, and the fittest to be laid as a ground‐work in the
study of this profession. And, indeed, my expectation was not at all
deceived in the reading of those Institutions.”(1)

The great changes which have taken place in our language render it
difficult to form a correct opinion of the merits of Mr. Norton’s
translation, which was first published about two hundred and fifty years
ago. It must give rather a favourable idea of its execution, that it was
carefully revised by the Rev. David Whitehead, a man of learning and
piety, who, in the reign of Henry VIII., was nominated by Archbishop
Cranmer to a bishopric in Ireland, and, soon after the accession of Queen
Elizabeth, was solicited by that Princess to fill the metropolitan see of
Canterbury, but declined the preferment. But, whatever were the merits or
defects of that translation at its first appearance, it has long been too
antiquated, uncouth, and obscure, to convey any just idea of the original
work, and abounds with passages which, to the modern English reader,
cannot but be altogether unintelligible.

The intrinsic excellence of the book, its importance in the history of
theological controversy, the celebrity of the Author, the application of
his name to designate the leading principles of the system he maintained,
and the frequent collision of sentiment respecting various parts of that
system, combine with other considerations to render it a matter of wonder,
that it has not long ago been given to the English public in a new dress.
The importance of it has also been much increased by the recent
controversy respecting Calvinism, commenced by Dr. Tomline, the present
Bishop of Lincoln, in which such direct and copious reference has been
made to the writings of this Reformer, and especially to his CHRISTIAN
INSTITUTES. These circumstances and considerations have led to the present
translation and publication, which, from the very respectable
encouragement it has received, the Translator trusts will be regarded as
an acceptable service to the religious public.

Among the different methods of translation which have been recommended, he
has adopted that which appeared to him best fitted to the present
undertaking. A servile adherence to the letter of the original, the style
of which is so very remote from the English idiom, he thought would convey
a very inadequate representation of the work; such extreme fidelity, to
use an expression of Cowper’s, being seldom successful, even in a faithful
transmission of the precise sentiments of the author to the mind of the
reader. A mere attention to the ideas and sentiments of the original, to
the neglect of its style and manner, would expose the Translator of a
treatise of this nature to no small danger of misrepresenting the meaning
of the Author, by too frequent and unnecessary deviations from his
language. He has, therefore, aimed at a medium between servility and
looseness, and endeavoured to follow the style of the original as far as
the respective idioms of the Latin and English would admit.

After the greater part of the work had been translated, he had the
happiness to meet with an edition in French of which he has availed
himself in translating the remainder, and in the revision of what he had
translated before. Every person, who understands any two languages, will
be aware that the ambiguity of one will sometimes be explained by the
precision of another; and, notwithstanding the acknowledged superiority of
the Latin to the French in most of the qualities which constitute the
excellence of a language, the case of the article is not the only one in
which Calvin’s French elucidates his Latin.

The scriptural quotations which occur in the work, the Translator has
given, generally, in the words of our common English version; sometimes
according to the readings in the margin of that version; and, in a few
instances, he has literally translated the version adopted by the Author,
where the context required his peculiar reading to be preserved. Almost
all the writers of that age, writing chiefly in a dead language, were
accustomed to speak of their adversaries in language which the polished
manners of the modern times have discarded, and which would now be deemed
illiberal and scurrilous. Where these cases occur, the Translator has not
thought himself bound to a literal rendering of every word, or at liberty
to refine them entirely away, but has adopted such expressions as he
apprehends will give a faithful representation of the spirit of the Author
to modern readers.

Intending this work as a complete system of theology, the Author has made
it the repository of his sentiments on all points of faith and practice.
The whole being distributed into four parts, in conformity to the
Apostles’ Creed, and this plan being very different from that of most
other bodies of divinity, the Translator has borrowed from the Latin
edition of Amsterdam a very perspicuous general syllabus, which will give
the reader a clear view of the original design and plan of the treatise.

He would not be understood to represent these Institutes as a perfect
summary of Christian doctrines and morals, or to profess an unqualified
approbation of all the sentiments they contain. This is a homage to which
no uninspired writings can ever be entitled. But the simplicity of the
method; the freedom from the barbarous terms, captious questions, minute
distinctions, and intricate subtilties of many other Divines; the
clearness and closeness of argument; the complete refutation of the
advocates of the Romish Church, sometimes by obvious conclusions from
their professed principles, sometimes by clear proofs of the absurdities
they involve; the intimate knowledge of ecclesiastical history; the
intimate acquaintance with former theological controversies; the
perspicuity of scriptural interpretation; and the uniform spirit of
genuine piety, which pervade the book, cannot escape the observation of
any judicious reader.

It has been advised by some persons that the translation should be
accompanied by a few notes, to elucidate and enforce some passages, and to
correct others; but, on all the consideration which the Translator has
been able to give to this subject, he has thought it would be best to
content himself with the humble office of placing the sentiments of Calvin
before the reader, with all the fidelity in his power, without any
addition or limitation. He hopes that the present publication will serve
the cause of true religion, and that the reputation of the work itself
will sustain no diminution from the form in which it now appears.

LONDON, _May 12, 1813_.

THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO AN EDITION PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1559, WITH HIS
LAST CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

In the first edition of this work, not expecting that success which the
Lord, in his infinite goodness, hath given, I handled the subject for the
most part in a superficial manner, as is usual in small treatises. But
when I understood that it had obtained from almost all pious persons such
a favourable acceptance as I never could have presumed to wish, much less
to hope; while I was conscious of receiving far more attention than I had
deserved, I thought it would evince great ingratitude, if I did not
endeavour at least, according to my humble ability, to make some suitable
return for the attentions paid to me—attentions of themselves calculated
to stimulate my industry. Nor did I attempt this only in the second
edition; but in every succeeding one the work has been improved by some
further enlargements. But though I repented not the labour then devoted to
it, yet I never satisfied myself, till it was arranged in the order in
which it is now published; and I trust I have here presented to my readers
what their judgments will unite in approving. Of my diligent application
to the accomplishment of this service for the Church of God, I can produce
abundant proof. For, last winter, when I thought that a quartan ague would
speedily terminate in my death, the more my disorder increased, the less I
spared myself, till I had finished this book, to leave it behind me, as
some grateful return to such kind solicitations of the religious public.
Indeed, I would rather it had been done sooner; but it is soon enough, if
well enough. I shall think it has appeared at the proper time, when I
shall find it to have been more beneficial than before to the Church of
God. This is my only wish.

I should indeed be ill requited for my labour, if I did not content myself
with the approbation of God alone, despising equally the foolish and
perverse judgments of ignorant men, and the calumnies and detractions of
the wicked. For though God hath wholly devoted my mind to study the
enlargement of his kingdom, and the promotion of general usefulness; and I
have the testimony of my own conscience, of angels, and of God himself,
that, since I undertook the office of a teacher in the Church, I have had
no other object in view than to profit the Church by maintaining the pure
doctrine of godliness; yet I suppose there is no man more slandered or
calumniated than myself. When this Preface was actually in the press, I
had certain information, that at Augsburg, where the States of the Empire
were assembled, a report had been circulated of my defection to popery,
and received with unbecoming eagerness in the courts of the princes. This
is the gratitude of those who cannot be unacquainted with the numerous
proofs of my constancy, which not only refute such a foul calumny, but,
with all equitable and humane judges, ought to preserve me from it. But
the devil, with all his host, is deceived, if he think to overwhelm me
with vile falsehoods, or to render me more timid, indolent, or dilatory,
by such indignities. For I trust that God, in his infinite goodness, will
enable me to persevere with patient constancy in the career of his holy
calling; of which I afford my pious readers a fresh proof in this edition.

Now, my design in this work has been to prepare and qualify students of
theology for the reading of the divine word, that they may have an easy
introduction to it, and be enabled to proceed in it without any
obstruction. For I think I have given such a comprehensive summary, and
orderly arrangement of all the branches of religion, that, with proper
attention, no person will find any difficulty in determining what ought to
be the principal objects of his research in the Scripture, and to what end
he ought to refer any thing it contains. This way, therefore, being
prepared, if I should hereafter publish any expositions of the Scripture,
I shall have no need to introduce long discussions respecting doctrines,
or digressions on common topics, and therefore shall always compress them
within a narrow compass. This will relieve the pious reader from great
trouble and tediousness, provided he come previously furnished with the
necessary information, by a knowledge of the present work. But as the
reason of this design is very evident in my numerous Commentaries, I would
rather have it known from the fact itself, than from my declaration.

Farewell, friendly reader; and if you receive any benefit from my labours,
let me have the assistance of your prayers with God our Father.

GENEVA, _1st August, 1559_.

DEDICATION.

_To His Most Christian Majesty_, FRANCIS, _King of the French, and
his Sovereign, John Calvin wisheth peace and salvation in Christ_.

When I began this work, Sire, nothing was further from my thoughts than
writing a book which would afterwards be presented to your Majesty. My
intention was only to lay down some elementary principles, by which
inquirers on the subject of religion might be instructed in the nature of
true piety. And this labour I undertook chiefly for my countrymen, the
French, of whom I apprehended multitudes to be hungering and thirsting
after Christ, but saw very few possessing any real knowledge of him. That
this was my design, the book itself proves by its simple method and
unadorned composition. But when I perceived that the fury of certain
wicked men in your kingdom had grown to such a height, as to leave no room
in the land for sound doctrine, I thought I should be usefully employed,
if in the same work I delivered my instructions to them, and exhibited my
confession to you, that you may know the nature of that doctrine, which is
the object of such unbounded rage to those madmen who are now disturbing
the country with fire and sword. For I shall not be afraid to acknowledge,
that this treatise contains a summary of that very doctrine, which,
according to their clamours, deserves to be punished with imprisonment,
banishment, proscription, and flames, and to be exterminated from the face
of the earth. I well know with what atrocious insinuations your ears have
been filled by them, in order to render our cause most odious in your
esteem; but your clemency should lead you to consider that, if accusation
be accounted a sufficient evidence of guilt, there will be an end of all
innocence in words and actions. If any one, indeed, with a view to bring
an odium upon the doctrine which I am endeavouring to defend, should
allege that it has long ago been condemned by the general consent, and
suppressed by many judicial decisions, this will be only equivalent to
saying, that it has been sometimes violently rejected through the
influence and power of its adversaries, and sometimes insidiously and
fraudulently oppressed by falsehoods, artifices, and calumnies. Violence
is displayed, when sanguinary sentences are passed against it without the
cause being heard; and fraud, when it is unjustly accused of sedition and
mischief. Lest any one should suppose that these our complaints are
unfounded, you yourself, Sire, can bear witness of the false calumnies
with which you hear it daily traduced; that its only tendency is to wrest
the sceptres of kings out of their hands, to overturn all the tribunals
and judicial proceedings, to subvert all order and governments, to disturb
the peace and tranquillity of the people, to abrogate all laws, to scatter
all properties and possessions, and, in a word, to involve every thing in
total confusion. And yet you hear the smallest portion of what is alleged
against it; for such horrible things are circulated amongst the vulgar,
that, if they were true, the whole world would justly pronounce it and its
abettors worthy of a thousand fires and gibbets. Who, then, will wonder at
its becoming the object of public odium, where credit is given to such
most iniquitous accusations? This is the cause of the general consent and
conspiracy to condemn us and our doctrine. Hurried away with this impulse,
those who sit in judgment pronounce for sentences the prejudices they
brought from home with them; and think their duty fully discharged if they
condemn none to be punished but such as are convicted by their own
confession, or by sufficient proofs. Convicted of what crime? Of this
condemned doctrine, they say. But with what justice is it condemned? Now,
the ground of defence was not to abjure the doctrine itself, but to
maintain its truth. On this subject, however, not a word is allowed to be
uttered.

Wherefore I beseech you, Sire,—and surely it is not an unreasonable
request,—to take upon yourself the entire cognizance of this cause, which
has hitherto been confusedly and carelessly agitated, without any order of
law, and with outrageous passion rather than judicial gravity. Think not
that I am now meditating my own individual defence, in order to effect a
safe return to my native country; for, though I feel the affection which
every man ought to feel for it, yet, under the existing circumstances, I
regret not my removal from it. But I plead the cause of all the godly, and
consequently of Christ himself, which, having been in these times
persecuted and trampled on in all ways in your kingdom, now lies in a most
deplorable state; and this indeed rather through the tyranny of certain
Pharisees, than with your knowledge. How this comes to pass is foreign to
my present purpose to say; but it certainly lies in a most afflicted
state. For the ungodly have gone to such lengths, that the truth of
Christ, if not vanquished, dissipated, and entirely destroyed, is buried,
as it were, in ignoble obscurity, while the poor, despised church is
either destroyed by cruel massacres, or driven away into banishment, or
menaced and terrified into total silence. And still they continue their
wonted madness and ferocity, pushing violently against the wall already
bent, and finishing the ruin they have begun. In the mean time, no one
comes forward to plead the cause against such furies. If there be any
persons desirous of appearing most favourable to the truth, they only
venture an opinion, that forgiveness should be extended to the error and
imprudence of ignorant people. For this is the language of these moderate
men, calling _that_ error and imprudence which they know to be the certain
truth of God, and _those_ ignorant people, whose understanding they
perceive not to have been so despicable to Christ, but that he has
favoured them with the mysteries of his heavenly wisdom. Thus all are
ashamed of the Gospel. But it shall be yours, Sire, not to turn away your
ears or thoughts from so just a defence, especially in a cause of such
importance as the maintenance of God’s glory unimpaired in the world, the
preservation of the honour of divine truth, and the continuance of the
kingdom of Christ uninjured among us. This is a cause worthy of your
attention, worthy of your cognizance, worthy of your throne. This
consideration constitutes true royalty, to acknowledge yourself in the
government of your kingdom to be the minister of God. For where the glory
of God is not made the end of the government, it is not a legitimate
sovereignty, but a usurpation. And he is deceived who expects lasting
prosperity in that kingdom which is not ruled by the sceptre of God, that
is, his holy word; for that heavenly oracle cannot fail, which declares
that “where there is no vision, the people perish.”(2) Nor should you be
seduced from this pursuit by a contempt of our meanness. We are fully
conscious to ourselves how very mean and abject we are, being miserable
sinners before God, and accounted most despicable by men; being (if you
please) the refuse of the world, deserving of the vilest appellations that
can be found; so that nothing remains for us to glory in before God, but
his mercy alone, by which, without any merit of ours, we have been
admitted to the hope of eternal salvation, and before men nothing but our
weakness, the slightest confession of which is esteemed by them as the
greatest disgrace. But our doctrine must stand, exalted above all the
glory, and invincible by all the power of the world; because it is not
ours, but the doctrine of the living God, and of his Christ, whom the
Father hath constituted King, that he may have dominion from sea to sea,
and from the river even to the ends of the earth, and that he may rule in
such a manner, that the whole earth, with its strength of iron and with
its splendour of gold and silver, smitten by the rod of his mouth, may be
broken to pieces like a potter’s vessel;(3) for thus do the prophets
foretell the magnificence of his kingdom.

Our adversaries reply, that our pleading the word of God is a false
pretence, and that we are nefarious corrupters of it. But that this is not
only a malicious calumny, but egregious impudence, by reading our
confession, you will, in your wisdom, be able to judge. Yet something
further is necessary to be said, to excite your attention, or at least to
prepare your mind for this perusal. Paul’s direction, that every prophecy
be framed “according to the analogy of faith,”(4) has fixed an invariable
standard by which all interpretation of Scripture ought to be tried. If
our principles be examined by this rule of faith, the victory is ours. For
what is more consistent with faith than to acknowledge ourselves naked of
all virtue, that we may be clothed by God; empty of all good, that we may
be filled by him; slaves to sin, that we may be liberated by him; blind,
that we may be enlightened by him; lame, that we may be guided; weak, that
we may be supported by him; to divest ourselves of all ground of glorying,
that he alone may be eminently glorious, and that we may glory in him?
When we advance these and similar sentiments, they interrupt us with
complaints that this is the way to overturn, I know not what blind light
of nature, pretended preparations, free will, and works meritorious of
eternal salvation, together with all their supererogations; because they
cannot bear that the praise and glory of all goodness, strength,
righteousness, and wisdom, should remain entirely with God. But we read of
none being reproved for having drawn too freely from the fountain of
living waters; on the contrary, they are severely upbraided who have
“hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”(5)
Again, what is more consistent with faith, than to assure ourselves of God
being a propitious Father, where Christ is acknowledged as a brother and
Mediator? than securely to expect all prosperity and happiness from Him,
whose unspeakable love towards us went so far, that “he spared not his own
Son, but delivered him up for us?”(6) than to rest in the certain
expectation of salvation and eternal life, when we reflect upon the
Father’s gift of Christ, in whom such treasures are hidden? Here they
oppose us, and complain that this certainty of confidence is chargeable
with arrogance and presumption. But as we ought to presume nothing of
ourselves, so we should presume every thing of God; nor are we divested of
vain glory for any other reason than that we may learn to glory in the
Lord. What shall I say more? Review, Sire, all the parts of our cause, and
consider us worse than the most abandoned of mankind, unless you clearly
discover that we thus “both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust
in the living God,”(7) because we believe that “this is life eternal, to
know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent.”(8) For this
hope some of us are bound in chains, others are lashed with scourges,
others are carried about as laughing‐stocks, others are outlawed, others
are cruelly tortured, others escape by flight; but we are all reduced to
extreme perplexities, execrated with dreadful curses, cruelly slandered,
and treated with the greatest indignities. Now, look at our adversaries,
(I speak of the order of priests, at whose will and directions others
carry on these hostilities against us,) and consider a little with me by
what principles they are actuated. The true religion, which is taught in
the Scriptures, and ought to be universally maintained, they readily
permit both themselves and others to be ignorant of, and to treat with
neglect and contempt. They think it unimportant what any one holds or
denies concerning God and Christ, provided he submits his mind with an
implicit faith (as they call it) to the judgment of the Church. Nor are
they much affected, if the glory of God happens to be violated with open
blasphemies, provided no one lift a finger against the primacy of the
Apostolic See, and the authority of their holy Mother Church. Why,
therefore, do they contend with such extreme bitterness and cruelty for
the mass, purgatory, pilgrimages, and similar trifles, and deny that any
piety can be maintained without a most explicit faith, so to speak, in
these things; whereas they prove none of them from the Word of God? Why,
but because their belly is their god, their kitchen is their religion;
deprived of which they consider themselves no longer as Christians, or
even as men. For though some feast themselves in splendour, and others
subsist on slender fare, yet all live on the same pot, which, without this
fuel, would not only cool, but completely freeze. Every one of them,
therefore, who is most solicitous for his belly, is found to be a most
strenuous champion for their faith. Indeed, they universally exert
themselves for the preservation of their kingdom, and the repletion of
their bellies; but not one of them discovers the least indication of
sincere zeal.

Nor do their attacks on our doctrine cease here; they urge every topic of
accusation and abuse to render it an object of hatred or suspicion. They
call it novel, and of recent origin,—they cavil at it as doubtful and
uncertain,—they inquire by what miracles it is confirmed,—they ask whether
it is right for it to be received contrary to the consent of so many holy
fathers, and the custom of the highest antiquity,—they urge us to confess
that it is schismatical in stirring up opposition against the Church, or
that the Church was wholly extinct for many ages, during which no such
thing was known.—Lastly, they say all arguments are unnecessary; for that
its nature may be determined by its fruits, since it has produced such a
multitude of sects, so many factious tumults, and such great
licentiousness of vices. It is indeed very easy for them to insult a
deserted cause with the credulous and ignorant multitude; but, if we had
also the liberty of speaking in our turn, this acrimony, which they now
discover in violently foaming against us with equal licentiousness and
impunity, would presently cool.

In the first place, their calling it novel is highly injurious to God,
whose holy word deserves not to be accused of novelty. I have no doubt of
its being new to them, to whom Jesus Christ and the Gospel are equally
new. But those who know the antiquity of this preaching of Paul, “that
Jesus Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification,”(9)
will find no novelty among us. That it has long been concealed, buried,
and unknown, is the crime of human impiety. Now that the goodness of God
has restored it to us, it ought at least to be allowed its just claim of
antiquity.

From the same source of ignorance springs the notion of its being doubtful
and uncertain. This is the very thing which the Lord complains of by his
prophet; that “the ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s
crib,”(10) but that his people know not him. But however they may laugh at
its uncertainty, if they were called to seal their own doctrine with their
blood and lives, it would appear how much they value it. Very different is
our confidence, which dreads neither the terrors of death, nor even the
tribunal of God.

Their requiring miracles of us is altogether unreasonable; for we forge no
new Gospel, but retain the very same whose truth was confirmed by all the
miracles ever wrought by Christ and the apostles. But they have this
peculiar advantage above us, that they can confirm their faith by
continual miracles even to this day. But the truth is, they allege
miracles which are calculated to unsettle a mind otherwise well
established, they are so frivolous and ridiculous, or vain and false. Nor,
if they were ever so preternatural, ought they to have any weight in
opposition to the truth of God, since the name of God ought to be
sanctified in all places and at all times, whether by miraculous events,
or by the common order of nature. This fallacy might perhaps be more
specious, if the Scripture did not apprize us of the legitimate end and
use of miracles. For Mark informs us, that the miracles which followed the
preaching of the apostles were wrought in confirmation(11) of it, and Luke
tells us, that(12) “the Lord gave testimony to the word of his grace,”
when “signs and wonders” were “done by the hands” of the apostles. Very
similar to which is the assertion of the apostle, that “salvation was
confirmed” by the preaching of the Gospel, “God also bearing witness with
signs, and wonders, and divers miracles.”(13) But those things which we
are told were seals of the Gospel, shall we pervert to undermine the faith
of the Gospel? Those things which were designed to be testimonials of the
truth, shall we accommodate to the confirmation of falsehood? It is right,
therefore, that the doctrine, which, according to the evangelist, claims
the first attention, be examined and tried in the first place; and if it
be approved, then it ought to derive confirmation from miracles. But it is
the characteristic of sound doctrine, given by Christ, that it tends to
promote, not the glory of men, but the glory of God.(14) Christ having
laid down this proof of a doctrine, it is wrong to esteem those as
miracles which are directed to any other end than the glorification of the
name of God alone. And we should remember that Satan has his wonders,
which, though they are juggling tricks rather than real miracles, are such
as to delude the ignorant and inexperienced. Magicians and enchanters have
always been famous for miracles; idolatry has been supported by
astonishing miracles; and yet we admit them not as proofs of the
superstition of magicians or idolaters. With this engine also the
simplicity of the vulgar was anciently assailed by the Donatists, who
abounded in miracles. We therefore give the same answer now to our
adversaries as Augustine(15) gave to the Donatists, that our Lord hath
cautioned us against these miracle‐mongers by his prediction, that there
should arise false prophets, who, by various signs and lying wonders,
“should deceive (if possible) the very elect.”(16) And Paul has told us,
that the kingdom of Antichrist would be “with all power, and signs, and
lying wonders.”(17) But these miracles (they say) are wrought, not by
idols, or sorcerers, or false prophets, but by saints; as if we were
ignorant, that it is a stratagem of Satan to “transform” himself “into an
angel of light.”(18) At the tomb of Jeremiah,(19) who was buried in Egypt,
the Egyptians formerly offered sacrifices and other divine honours. Was
not this abusing God’s holy prophet to the purposes of idolatry? Yet they
supposed this veneration of his sepulchre to be rewarded with a cure for
the bite of serpents. What shall we say, but that it has been, and ever
will be, the most righteous vengeance of God to “send those who receive
not the love of the truth strong delusions, that they should believe a
lie”?(20) We are by no means without miracles, and such as are certain,
and not liable to cavils. But those under which they shelter themselves
are mere illusions of Satan, seducing the people from the true worship of
God to vanity.

Another calumny is their charging us with opposition to the fathers,—I
mean the writers of the earlier and purer ages,—as if those writers were
abettors of their impiety; whereas, if the contest were to be terminated
by this authority, the victory in most parts of the controversy—to speak
in the most modest terms—would be on our side. But though the writings of
those fathers contain many wise and excellent things, yet in some respects
they have suffered the common fate of mankind; these very dutiful children
reverence only their errors and mistakes, but their excellences they
either overlook, or conceal, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said to
be their only study to collect dross from the midst of gold. Then they
overwhelm us with senseless clamours, as despisers and enemies of the
fathers. But we do not hold them in such contempt, but that, if it were
consistent with my present design, I could easily support by their
suffrages most of the sentiments that we now maintain. But while we make
use of their writings, we always remember that “all things are ours,” to
serve us, not to have dominion over us, and that “we are Christ’s”(21)
alone, and owe him universal obedience. He who neglects this distinction
will have nothing decided in religion; since those holy men were ignorant
of many things, frequently at variance with each other, and sometimes even
inconsistent with themselves. There is great reason, they say, for the
admonition of Solomon, “not to transgress or remove the ancient landmarks,
which our fathers have set.”(22) But the same rule is not applicable to
the bounding of fields, and to the obedience of faith, which ought to be
ready to “forget her own people and her father’s house.”(23) But if they
are so fond of allegorizing, why do they not explain the apostles, rather
than any others, to be those fathers, whose appointed landmarks it is so
unlawful to remove? For this is the interpretation of Jerome, whose works
they have received into their canons. But if they insist on preserving the
landmarks of those whom they understand to be intended, why do they at
pleasure so freely transgress them themselves? There were two fathers,(24)
of whom one said, that our God neither eats nor drinks, and therefore
needs neither cups nor dishes; the other, that sacred things require no
gold, and that gold is no recommendation of that which is not purchased
with gold. This landmark therefore is transgressed by those who in sacred
things are so much delighted with gold, silver, ivory, marble, jewels, and
silks, and suppose that God is not rightly worshipped, unless all things
abound in exquisite splendour, or rather extravagant profusion. There was
a father(25) who said he freely partook of flesh on a day when others
abstained from it, because he was a Christian. They transgress the
landmarks therefore when they curse the soul that tastes flesh in Lent.
There were two fathers,(26) of whom one said, that a monk who labours not
with his hands is on a level with a cheat or a robber; and the other, that
it is unlawful for monks to live on what is not their own, notwithstanding
their assiduity in contemplations, studies, and prayers; and they have
transgressed this landmark by placing the idle and distended carcasses of
monks in cells and brothels, to be pampered on the substance of others.
There was a father(27) who said, that to see a painted image of Christ, or
of any saint, in the temples of Christians, is a dreadful abomination. Nor
was this merely the sentence of an individual; it was also decreed by an
ecclesiastical council, that the object of worship should not be painted
on the walls. They are far from confining themselves within these
landmarks, for every corner is filled with images. Another father(28) has
advised that, after having discharged the office of humanity towards the
dead by the rites of sepulture, we should leave them to their repose. They
break through these landmarks by inculcating a constant solicitude for the
dead. There was one of the fathers(29) who asserted that the substance of
bread and wine in the eucharist ceases not, but remains, just as the
substance of the human nature remains in the Lord Christ united with the
divine. They transgress this landmark therefore by pretending that, on the
words of the Lord being recited, the substance of bread and wine ceases,
and is transubstantiated into his body and blood. There were fathers(30)
who, while they exhibited to the universal Church only one eucharist, and
forbade all scandalous and immoral persons to approach it, at the same
time severely censured all who, when present, did not partake of it. How
far have they removed these landmarks, when they fill not only the
churches, but even private houses, with their masses, admit all who choose
to be spectators of them, and every one the more readily in proportion to
the magnitude of his contribution, however chargeable with impurity and
wickedness! They invite none to faith in Christ and a faithful
participation of the sacraments; but rather for purposes of gain bring
forward their own work instead of the grace and merit of Christ. There
were two fathers,(31) of whom one contended that the use of Christ’s
sacred supper should be wholly forbidden to those who, content with
partaking of one kind, abstained from the other; the other strenuously
maintained that Christian people ought not to be refused the blood of
their Lord, for the confession of whom they are required to shed their
own. These landmarks also they have removed, in appointing, by an
inviolable law, that very thing which the former punished with
excommunication, and the latter gave a powerful reason for disapproving.
There was a father(32) who asserted the temerity of deciding on either
side of an obscure subject, without clear and evident testimonies of
Scripture. This landmark they forgot when they made so many constitutions,
canons, and judicial determinations, without any authority from the word
of God. There was a father(33) who upbraided Montanus with having, among
other heresies, been the first imposer of laws for the observance of
fasts. They have gone far beyond this landmark also, in establishing fasts
by the strictest laws. There was a father(34) who denied that marriage
ought to be forbidden to the ministers of the Church, and pronounced
cohabitation with a wife to be real chastity; and there were fathers who
assented to his judgment. They have transgressed these landmarks by
enjoining on their priests the strictest celibacy. There was a father who
thought that attention should be paid to Christ only, of whom it is said,
“Hear ye him,” and that no regard should be had to what others before us
have either said or done, only to what has been commanded by Christ, who
is preëminent over all. This landmark they neither prescribe to
themselves, nor permit to be observed by others, when they set up over
themselves and others any masters rather than Christ. There was a
father(35) who contended that the Church ought not to take the precedence
of Christ, because his judgment is always according to truth; but
ecclesiastical judges, like other men, may generally be deceived. Breaking
down this landmark also, they scruple not to assert, that all the
authority of the Scripture depends on the decision of the Church. All the
fathers, with one heart and voice, have declared it execrable and
detestable for the holy word of God to be contaminated with the subtleties
of sophists, and perplexed by the wrangles of logicians. Do they confine
themselves within these landmarks, when the whole business of their lives
is to involve the simplicity of the Scripture in endless controversies,
and worse than sophistical wrangles? so that if the fathers were now
restored to life, and heard this art of wrangling, which they call
speculative divinity, they would not suspect the dispute to have the least
reference to God. But if I would enumerate all the instances in which the
authority of the fathers is insolently rejected by those who would be
thought their dutiful children, my address would exceed all reasonable
bounds. Months and years would be insufficient for me. And yet such is
their consummate and incorrigible impudence, they dare to censure us for
presuming to transgress the ancient landmarks.

Nor can they gain any advantage against us by their argument from custom;
for, if we were compelled to submit to custom, we should have to complain
of the greatest injustice. Indeed, if the judgments of men were correct,
custom should be sought among the good. But the fact is often very
different. What appears to be practised by many soon obtains the force of
a custom. And human affairs have scarcely ever been in so good a state as
for the majority to be pleased with things of real excellence. From the
private vices of multitudes, therefore, has arisen public error, or rather
a common agreement of vices, which these good men would now have to be
received as law. It is evident to all who can see, that the world is
inundated with more than an ocean of evils, that it is overrun with
numerous destructive pests, that every thing is fast verging to ruin, so
that we must altogether despair of human affairs, or vigorously and even
violently oppose such immense evils. And the remedy is rejected for no
other reason, but because we have been accustomed to the evils so long.
But let public error be tolerated in human society; in the kingdom of God
nothing but his eternal truth should be heard and regarded, which no
succession of years, no custom, no confederacy, can circumscribe. Thus
Isaiah once taught the chosen people of God: “Say ye not, A confederacy,
to all to whom this people shall say, A confederacy;” that is, that they
should not unite in the wicked consent of the people; “nor fear their
fear, nor be afraid,” but rather “sanctify the Lord of hosts,” that he
might “be their fear and their dread.”(36)Now, therefore, let them, if
they please, object against us past ages and present examples; if we
“sanctify the Lord of hosts,” we shall not be much afraid. For, whether
many ages agree in similar impiety, he is mighty to take vengeance on the
third and fourth generation; or whether the whole world combine in the
same iniquity, he has given an example of the fatal end of those who sin
with a multitude, by destroying all men with a deluge, and preserving Noah
and his small family, in order that his individual faith might condemn the
whole world. Lastly, a corrupt custom is nothing but an epidemical
pestilence, which is equally fatal to its objects, though they fall with a
multitude. Besides, they ought to consider a remark, somewhere made by
Cyprian,(37) that persons who sin through ignorance, though they cannot be
wholly exculpated, may yet be considered in some degree excusable; but
those who obstinately reject the truth offered by the Divine goodness, are
without any excuse at all.

Nor are we so embarrassed by their dilemma as to be obliged to confess,
either that the Church was for some time extinct, or that we have now a
controversy with the Church. The Church of Christ has lived, and will
continue to live, as long as Christ shall reign at the right hand of the
Father, by whose hand she is sustained, by whose protection she is
defended, by whose power she is preserved in safety. For he will
undoubtedly perform what he once promised, to be with his people “even to
the end of the world.”(38) We have no quarrel against the Church, for with
one consent we unite with all the company of the faithful in worshipping
and adoring the one God and Christ the Lord, as he has been adored by all
the pious in all ages. But our opponents deviate widely from the truth
when they acknowledge no Church but what is visible to the corporeal eye,
and endeavour to circumscribe it by those limits within which it is far
from being included. Our controversy turns on the two following
points:—first, they contend that the form of the Church is always apparent
and visible; secondly, they place that form in the see of the Roman Church
and her order of prelates. We assert, on the contrary, first, that the
Church may exist without any visible form; secondly, that its form is not
contained in that external splendour which they foolishly admire, but is
distinguished by a very different criterion, viz. the pure preaching of
God’s word, and the legitimate administration of the sacraments. They are
not satisfied unless the Church can always be pointed out with the finger.
But how often among the Jewish people was it so disorganized, as to have
no visible form left? What splendid form do we suppose could be seen, when
Elias deplored his being left alone?(39) How long, after the coming of
Christ, did it remain without any external form? How often, since that
time, have wars, seditions, and heresies, oppressed and totally obscured
it? If they had lived at that period, would they have believed that any
Church existed? Yet Elias was informed that there were “left seven
thousand” who had “not bowed the knee to Baal.” Nor should we entertain
any doubt of Christ’s having always reigned on earth ever since his
ascension to heaven. But if the pious at such periods had sought for any
form evident to their senses, must not their hearts have been quite
discouraged? Indeed it was already considered by Hilary in his day as a
grievous error, that people were absorbed in foolish admiration of the
episcopal dignity, and did not perceive the dreadful mischiefs concealed
under that disguise. For this is his language:(40) “One thing I advise
you—beware of Antichrist, for you have an improper attachment to walls;
your veneration for the Church of God is misplaced on houses and
buildings; you wrongly introduce under them the name of peace. Is there
any doubt that they will be seats of Antichrist? I think mountains, woods,
and lakes, prisons and whirlpools, less dangerous; for these were the
scenes of retirement or banishment in which the prophets prophesied.” But
what excites the veneration of the multitude in the present day for their
horned bishops, but the supposition that those are the holy prelates of
religion whom they see presiding over great cities? Away, then, with such
stupid admiration. Let us rather leave it to the Lord, since he alone
“knoweth them that are his,”(41) sometimes to remove from human
observation all external knowledge of his Church. I admit this to be a
dreadful judgment of God on the earth; but if it be deserved by the
impiety of men, why do we attempt to resist the righteous vengeance of
God? Thus the Lord punished the ingratitude of men in former ages; for, in
consequence of their resistance to his truth, and extinction of the light
he had given them, he permitted them to be blinded by sense, deluded by
absurd falsehoods, and immerged in profound darkness, so that there was no
appearance of the true Church left; yet, at the same time, in the midst of
darkness and errors, he preserved his scattered and concealed people from
total destruction. Nor is this to be wondered at; for he knew how to save
in all the confusion of Babylon, and the flame of the fiery furnace. But
how dangerous it is to estimate the form of the Church by I know not what
vain pomp, which they contend for; I shall rather briefly suggest than
state at large, lest I should protract this discourse to an excessive
length. The Pope, they say, who holds the Apostolic see, and the bishops
anointed and consecrated by him, provided they are equipped with mitres
and crosiers, represent the Church, and ought to be considered as the
Church. Therefore they cannot err. How is this?—Because they are pastors
of the Church, and consecrated to the Lord. And did not the pastoral
character belong to Aaron, and the other rulers of Israel? Yet Aaron and
his sons, after their designation to the priesthood, fell into error when
they made the golden calf.(42) According to this mode of reasoning, why
should not the four hundred prophets, who lied to Ahab, have represented
the Church?(43) But the Church remained on the side of Micaiah, solitary
and despised as he was, and out of his mouth proceeded the truth. Did not
those prophets exhibit both the name and appearance of the Church, who
with united violence rose up against Jeremiah, and threatened and boasted,
“the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor
the word from the prophet”?(44) Jeremiah is sent singly against the whole
multitude of prophets, with a denunciation from the Lord, that the “law
shall perish from the priest, counsel from the wise, and the word from the
prophet.”(45) And was there not the like external respectability in the
council convened by the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, to consult
about putting Christ to death?(46) Now, let them go and adhere to the
external appearance, and thereby make Christ and all the prophets
schismatics, and, on the other hand, make the ministers of Satan
instruments of the Holy Spirit. But if they speak their real sentiments,
let them answer me sincerely, what nation or place they consider as the
seat of the Church, from the time when, by a decree of the council of
Basil, Eugenius was deposed and degraded from the pontificate, and Amadeus
substituted in his place. They cannot deny that the council, as far as
relates to external forms, was a lawful one, and summoned not only by one
pope, but by two. There Eugenius was pronounced guilty of schism,
rebellion, and obstinacy, together with all the host of cardinals and
bishops who had joined him in attempting a dissolution of the council. Yet
afterwards, assisted by the favour of princes, he regained the quiet
possession of his former dignity. That election of Amadeus, though
formally made by the authority of a general and holy synod, vanished into
smoke; and he was appeased with a cardinal’s hat, like a barking dog with
a morsel. From the bosom of those heretics and rebels have proceeded all
the popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and priests, ever since. Here they
must stop. For to which party will they give the title of the Church? Will
they deny that this was a general council, which wanted nothing to
complete its external majesty, being solemnly convened by two papal bulls,
consecrated by a presiding legate of the Roman see, and well regulated in
every point of order, and invariably preserving the same dignity to the
last? Will they acknowledge Eugenius to be a schismatic, with all his
adherents, by whom they have all been consecrated? Either, therefore, let
them give a different definition of the form of the Church, or, whatever
be their number, we shall account them all schismatics, as having been
knowingly and voluntarily ordained by heretics. But if it had never been
ascertained before, that the Church is not confined to external pomps,
they would themselves afford us abundant proof of it, who have so long
superciliously exhibited themselves to the world under the title of the
Church, though they were at the same time the deadly plagues of it. I
speak not of their morals, and those tragical exploits with which all
their lives abound, since they profess themselves to be Pharisees, who are
to be heard and not imitated. I refer to the very doctrine itself, on
which they found their claim to be considered as the Church. If you devote
a portion of your leisure, Sire, to the perusal of our writings, you will
clearly discover that doctrine to be a fatal pestilence of souls, the
firebrand, ruin, and destruction of the Church.

Finally, they betray great want of candour, by invidiously repeating what
great commotions, tumults, and contentions, have attended the preaching of
our doctrine, and what effects it produces in many persons. For it is
unfair to charge it with those evils which ought to be attributed to the
malice of Satan. It is the native property of the Divine word, never to
make its appearance without disturbing Satan, and rousing his opposition.
This is the most certain and unequivocal criterion by which it is
distinguished from false doctrines, which are easily broached when they
are heard with general attention, and received with applauses by the
world. Thus, in some ages, when all things were immerged in profound
darkness, the prince of this world amused and diverted himself with the
generality of mankind, and, like another Sardanapalus, gave himself up to
his ease and pleasures in perfect peace; for what would he do but amuse
and divert himself, in the quiet and undisturbed possession of his
kingdom? But when the light shining from above dissipated a portion of his
darkness—when that Mighty One alarmed and assaulted his kingdom—then he
began to shake off his wonted torpor, and to hurry on his armour. First,
indeed, he stirred up the power of men to suppress the truth by violence
at its first appearance; and when this proved ineffectual, he had recourse
to subtlety. He made the Catabaptists, and other infamous characters, the
instruments of exciting dissensions and doctrinal controversies, with a
view to obscure and finally to extinguish it. And now he continues to
attack it in both ways; for he endeavours to root up this genuine seed by
means of human force, and at the same time tries every effort to choke it
with his tares, that it may not grow and produce fruit. But all his
attempts will be vain, if we attend to the admonitions of the Lord, who
hath long ago made us acquainted with his devices, that we might not be
caught by him unawares, and has armed us with sufficient means of defence
against all his assaults. But to charge the word of God with the odium of
seditions, excited against it by wicked and rebellious men, or of sects
raised by impostors,—is not this extreme malignity? Yet it is not without
example in former times. Elias was asked whether it was not he “that
troubled Israel.”(47) Christ was represented by the Jews as guilty of
sedition.(48) The apostles were accused of stirring up popular
commotions.(49) Wherein does this differ from the conduct of those who, at
the present day, impute to us all the disturbances, tumults, and
contentions, that break out against us? But the proper answer to such
accusations has been taught us by Elias, that the dissemination of errors
and the raising of tumults is not chargeable on us, but on those who are
resisting the power of God. But as this one reply is sufficient to repress
their temerity, so, on the other hand, we must meet the weakness of some
persons, who are frequently disturbed with such offences, and become
unsettled and wavering in their minds. Now, that they may not stumble and
fall amidst this agitation and perplexity, let them know that the apostles
in their day experienced the same things that now befall us. There were
“unlearned and unstable” men, Peter says, who “wrested” the inspired
writings of Paul “to their own destruction.”(50) There were despisers of
God, who, when they heard that “where sin abounded grace did much more
abound,” immediately concluded, Let us “continue in sin, that grace may
abound.” When they heard that the faithful were “not under the law,” they
immediately croaked, “We will sin, because we are not under the law, but
under grace.”(51) There were some who accused him as an encourager of sin.
Many false apostles crept in, to destroy the churches he had raised. “Some
preached” the gospel “of envy and strife, not in sincerity,” maliciously
“supposing to add affliction to his bonds.”(52) In some places the Gospel
was attended with little benefit. “All were seeking their own, not the
things of Jesus Christ.”(53) Others returned “like dogs to their vomit,
and like swine to their wallowing in the mire.”(54) Many perverted the
liberty of the spirit into the licentiousness of the flesh. Many
insinuated themselves as brethren, who afterwards brought the pious into
dangers. Various contentions were excited among the brethren themselves.
What was to be done by the apostles in such circumstances? Should they not
have dissembled for a time, or rather have rejected and deserted that
Gospel which appeared to be the nursery of so many disputes, the cause of
so many dangers, the occasion of so many offences? But in such
difficulties as these, their minds were relieved by this reflection, that
Christ is the “stone of stumbling and rock of offence,”(55) “set for the
fall and rising again of many, and for a sign which shall be spoken
against;”(56) and armed with this confidence, they proceeded boldly
through all the dangers of tumults and offences. The same consideration
should support us, since Paul declares it to be the perpetual character of
the Gospel, that it is “a savour of death unto death in them that
perish,”(57) although it was rather given us to be the “savour of life
unto life,” and “the power of God to” the “salvation” of the faithful;(58)
which we also should certainly experience it to be, if we did not corrupt
this eminent gift of God by our ingratitude, and pervert to our
destruction what ought to be a principal instrument of our salvation.

But I return to you, Sire. Let not your Majesty be at all moved by those
groundless accusations with which our adversaries endeavour to terrify
you; as that the sole tendency and design of this new Gospel—for so they
call it—is to furnish a pretext for seditions, and to gain impunity for
all crimes. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace;”(59)
nor is “the Son of God,” who came to “destroy the works of the devil, the
minister of sin.”(60) And it is unjust to charge us with such motives and
designs, of which we have never given cause for the least suspicion. Is it
probable that we are meditating the subversion of kingdoms?—we, who were
never heard to utter a factious word, whose lives were ever known to be
peaceable and honest while we lived under your government, and who, even
now in our exile, cease not to pray for all prosperity to attend yourself
and your kingdom! Is it probable that we are seeking an unlimited license
to commit crimes with impunity? in whose conduct, though many things may
be blamed, yet there is nothing worthy of such severe reproach! Nor have
we, by Divine Grace, profited so little in the Gospel, but that our life
may be an example to our detractors of chastity, liberality, mercy,
temperance, patience, modesty, and every other virtue. It is an undeniable
fact, that we sincerely fear and worship God, whose name we desire to be
sanctified both by our life and by our death; and envy itself is
constrained to bear testimony to the innocence and civil integrity of some
of us, who have suffered the punishment of death for that very thing which
ought to be accounted their highest praise. But if the Gospel be made a
pretext for tumults, which has not yet happened in your kingdom; if any
persons make the liberty of divine grace an excuse for the licentiousness
of their vices, of whom I have known many,—there are laws and legal
penalties, by which they may be punished according to their deserts; only
let not the Gospel of God be reproached for the crimes of wicked men. You
have now, Sire, the virulent iniquity of our calumniators laid before you
in a sufficient number of instances, that you may not receive their
accusations with too credulous an ear.—I fear I have gone too much into
the detail, as this preface already approaches the size of a full apology;
whereas I intended it not to contain our defence, but only to prepare your
mind to attend to the pleading of our cause; for, though you are now
averse and alienated from us, and even inflamed against us, we despair not
of regaining your favour, if you will only once read with calmness and
composure this our confession, which we intend as our defence before your
Majesty. But, on the contrary, if your ears are so preoccupied with the
whispers of the malevolent, as to leave no opportunity for the accused to
speak for themselves, and if those outrageous furies, with your
connivance, continue to persecute with imprisonments, scourges, tortures,
confiscations, and flames, we shall indeed, like sheep destined to the
slaughter, be reduced to the greatest extremities. Yet shall we in
patience possess our souls, and wait for the mighty hand of the Lord,
which undoubtedly will in time appear, and show itself armed for the
deliverance of the poor from their affliction, and for the punishment of
their despisers, who now exult in such perfect security. May the Lord, the
King of kings, establish your throne with righteousness, and your kingdom
with equity.

BASIL, _1st August, 1536_.

GENERAL SYLLABUS.

The design of the Author in these Christian Institutes is twofold,
relating, First, to the knowledge of God, as the way to attain a blessed
immortality; and, in connection with and subservience to this, Secondly,
to the knowledge of ourselves.

In the prosecution of this design, he strictly follows the method of the
Apostles’ Creed, as being most familiar to all Christians. For as the
Creed consists of four parts, the first relating to God the Father, the
second to the Son, the third to the Holy Spirit, the fourth to the Church;
so the Author distributes the whole of this work into Four Books,
corresponding respectively to the four parts of the Creed; as will clearly
appear from the following detail:—

I. The first article of the Creed relates to God the Father, and to the
creation, conservation, and government of all things, which are included
in his omnipotence.

So the first book is on the knowledge of God, considered as the Creator,
Preserver, and Governor of the universe at large, and of every thing
contained in it. It shows both the nature and tendency of the true
knowledge of the Creator—that this is not learned in the schools, but that
every man from his birth is self‐taught it—Yet that the depravity of men
is so great as to corrupt and extinguish this knowledge, partly by
ignorance, partly by wickedness; so that it neither leads him to glorify
God as he ought, nor conducts him to the attainment of happiness—And
though this internal knowledge is assisted by all the creatures around,
which serve as a mirror to display the Divine perfections, yet that man
does not profit by it—Therefore, that to those, whom it is God’s will to
bring to an intimate and saving knowledge of himself, he gives his written
word; which introduces observations on the sacred Scripture—That he has
therein revealed himself; that not the Father only, but the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, united, is the Creator of heaven and earth; whom neither
the knowledge innate by nature, nor the very beautiful mirror displayed to
us in the world, can, in consequence of our depravity, teach us to know so
as to glorify him. This gives occasion for treating of the revelation of
God in the Scripture, of the unity of the Divine Essence, and the trinity
of Persons.—To prevent man from attributing to God the blame of his own
voluntary blindness, the Author shows the state of man at his creation,
and treats of the image of God, free‐will, and the primitive integrity of
nature.—Having finished the subject of creation, he proceeds to the
conservation and government of all things, concluding the first book with
a full discussion of the doctrine of divine providence.

II. But since man is fallen by sin from the state in which he was created,
it is necessary to come to Christ. Therefore it follows in the Creed, “And
in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord,” &c.

So in the second book of the Institutes our Author treats of the knowledge
of God as the Redeemer in Christ; and having shown the fall of man, leads
him to Christ the Mediator. Here he states the doctrine of original
sin—that man possesses no inherent strength to enable him to deliver
himself from sin and the impending curse, but that, on the contrary,
nothing can proceed from him, antecedently to reconciliation and
renovation, but what is deserving of condemnation—Therefore, that, man
being utterly lost in himself, and incapable of conceiving even a good
thought by which he may restore himself, or perform actions acceptable to
God, he must seek redemption out of himself, in Christ—That the Law was
given for this purpose, not to confine its observers to itself, but to
conduct them to Christ; which gives occasion to introduce an exposition of
the Moral Law—That he was known, as the Author of salvation, to the Jews
under the Law, but more fully under the Gospel, in which he is manifested
to the world.—Hence follows the doctrine of the similarity and difference
of the Old and New Testament, of the Law and Gospel.—It is next stated,
that, in order to the complete accomplishment of salvation, it was
necessary for the eternal Son of God to become man, and that he actually
assumed a real human nature:—it is also shown how these two natures
constitute one person—That the office of Christ, appointed for the
acquisition and application of complete salvation by his merit and
efficacy, is sacerdotal, regal, and prophetical.—Next follows the manner
in which Christ executed his office, or actually performed the part of a
Mediator, being an exposition of the Articles respecting his death,
resurrection, and ascension to heaven.—Lastly, the Author shows the truth
and propriety of affirming that Christ merited the grace of God and
salvation for us.

III. As long as Christ is separate from us, he profits us nothing. Hence
the necessity of our being ingrafted into him, as branches into a vine.
Therefore the doctrine concerning Christ is followed, in the third part of
the Creed, by this clause, “I believe in the Holy Spirit,” as being the
bond of union between us and Christ.

So in the third book our Author treats of the Holy Spirit, who unites us
to Christ—and consequently of faith, by which we embrace Christ, with his
twofold benefit, free righteousness, which he imputes to us, and
regeneration, which he commences within us, by bestowing repentance upon
us.—And to show that we have not the least room to glory in such faith as
is unconnected with the pursuit of repentance, before proceeding to the
full discussion of justification, he treats at large of repentance and the
continual exercise of it, which Christ, apprehended by faith, produces in
us by his Spirit.—He next fully discusses the first and chief benefit of
Christ when united to us by the Holy Spirit, that is, justification—and
then treats of prayer, which resembles the hand that actually receives
those blessings to be enjoyed, which faith knows, from the word of
promise, to be laid up with God for our use.—But as all men are not united
to Christ, the sole Author of salvation, by the Holy Spirit, who creates
and preserves faith in us, he treats of God’s eternal election; which is
the cause that we, in whom he foresaw no good but what he intended freely
to bestow, have been favoured with the gift of Christ, and united to God
by the effectual call of the Gospel.—Lastly, he treats of complete
regeneration, and the fruition of happiness; that is, the final
resurrection, towards which our eyes must be directed, since in this world
the felicity of the pious, in respect of enjoyment, is only begun.

IV. But as the Holy Spirit does not unite all men to Christ, or make them
partakers of faith, and on those to whom he imparts it he does not
ordinarily bestow it without means, but employs for this purpose the
preaching of the Gospel and the use of the sacraments, with the
administration of all discipline, therefore it follows in the Creed, “I
believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” whom, though involved in eternal
death, yet, in pursuance of the gratuitous election, God has freely
reconciled to himself in Christ, and made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
that, being ingrafted into Christ, they may have communion with him as
their head, whence flows a perpetual remission of sins, and a full
restoration to eternal life.

So in the fourth book our Author treats of the Church—then of the means
used by the Holy Spirit in effectually calling from spiritual death, and
preserving the church—the word and sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s
supper—which are as it were Christ’s regal sceptre, by which he commences
his spiritual reign in the Church by the energy of his Spirit, and carries
it forwards from day to day during the present life, after the close of
which he perfects it without those means.

And as political institutions are the asylums of the Church in this life,
though civil government is distinct from the spiritual kingdom of Christ,
our Author instructs us respecting it as a signal blessing of God, which
the Church ought to acknowledge with gratitude of heart, till we are
called out of this transitory state to the heavenly inheritance, where God
will be all in all.

This is the plan of the Institutes, which may be comprised in the
following brief summary:—

Man, created originally upright, being afterwards ruined, not partially,
but totally, finds salvation out of himself, wholly in Christ; to whom
being united by the Holy Spirit, freely bestowed, without any regard of
future works, he enjoys in him a twofold benefit, the perfect imputation
of righteousness, which attends him to the grave, and the commencement of
sanctification, which he daily increases, till at length he completes it
at the day of regeneration or resurrection of the body, so that in eternal
life and the heavenly inheritance his praises are celebrated for such
stupendous mercy.

BOOK I. ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.

Argument.

The first book treats of the knowledge of God the Creator; but, this being
chiefly manifested in the creation of man, man also is made the subject of
discussion. Thus the principal topics of the whole treatise are two—the
knowledge of God, and the knowledge of man. In the first chapter, they are
considered together; in the following chapters, separately; yet some
things are introduced, which may be referred to either or both. What
respects the Scripture and images may belong to the knowledge of God; what
respects the formation of the world, the holy angels, and the devils, to
the knowledge of man; and what respects the manner in which God governs
the world, to both.

On the first of these topics, the knowledge of God, this book shows,

First, What kind of knowledge God himself requires—Chap. II.

Secondly, Where it must be sought—Chap. III.‐IX., as follows:

1. Not in man; because, though the human mind is naturally endued with it,
yet it is extinguished, partly by ignorance, partly by wickedness—Chap.
III. IV.

2. Nor in the structure of the world; because, though it shines there with
the brightest evidence, testimonies of that kind, however plain, are,
through our stupidity, wholly useless to us—Chap. V.

3. But in the Scripture—Chap. VI.‐IX.

Thirdly, What kind of a being God is—Chap. X.

Fourthly, The impiety of ascribing to God a visible form, with
observations on the adoration and origin of images—Chap. XI.

Fifthly, The reasonableness that God alone should be supremely
worshipped—Chap. XII.

Lastly, The unity of the Divine Essence, and the distinction of three
Persons—Chap. XIII.

On the other of these topics, the knowledge of man, it contains,

First, A dissertation on the creation of the world, and on the good and
evil angels, all which relate to man—Chap. XIV.

Secondly, Proceeding to man himself, an examination of his nature and
powers—Chap. XV.

But, in order to a clearer illustration of the knowledge of God and man,
the three remaining chapters treat of the government of all human actions
and of the whole world, in opposition to fortune and fate, stating the
pure doctrine, and showing its use; and conclude with proving that, though
God uses the agency of the wicked, he is pure from all pollution, and
chargeable with no blame.

Chapter I. The Connection Between The Knowledge Of God And The Knowledge
Of Ourselves.

True and substantial wisdom principally consists of two parts, the
knowledge of God, and the knowledge of ourselves. But, while these two
branches of knowledge are so intimately connected, which of them precedes
and produces the other, is not easy to discover. For, in the first place,
no man can take a survey of himself but he must immediately turn to the
contemplation of God, in whom he “lives and moves;”(61) since it is
evident that the talents which we possess are not from ourselves, and that
our very existence is nothing but a subsistence in God alone. These
bounties, distilling to us by drops from heaven, form, as it were, so many
streams conducting us to the fountain‐head. Our poverty conduces to a
clearer display of the infinite fulness of God. Especially, the miserable
ruin, into which we have been plunged by the defection of the first man,
compels us to raise our eyes towards heaven, not only as hungry and
famished, to seek thence a supply for our wants, but, aroused with fear,
to learn humility. For, since man is subject to a world of miseries, and
has been spoiled of his divine array, this melancholy exposure discovers
an immense mass of deformity: every one, therefore, must be so impressed
with a consciousness of his own infelicity, as to arrive at some knowledge
of God. Thus a sense of our ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity,
depravity, and corruption, leads us to perceive and acknowledge that in
the Lord alone are to be found true wisdom, solid strength, perfect
goodness, and unspotted righteousness; and so, by our imperfections, we
are excited to a consideration of the perfections of God. Nor can we
really aspire toward him, till we have begun to be displeased with
ourselves. For who would not gladly rest satisfied with himself? where is
the man not actually absorbed in self‐complacency, while he remains
unacquainted with his true situation, or content with his own endowments,
and ignorant or forgetful of his own misery? The knowledge of ourselves,
therefore, is not only an incitement to seek after God, but likewise a
considerable assistance towards finding him.

II. On the other hand, it is plain that no man can arrive at the true
knowledge of himself, without having first contemplated the divine
character, and then descended to the consideration of his own. For, such
is the native pride of us all, we invariably esteem ourselves righteous,
innocent, wise, and holy, till we are convinced, by clear proofs, of our
unrighteousness, turpitude, folly, and impurity. But we are never thus
convinced, while we confine our attention to ourselves, and regard not the
Lord, who is the only standard by which this judgment ought to be formed.
Because, from our natural proneness to hypocrisy, any vain appearance of
righteousness abundantly contents us instead of the reality; and, every
thing within and around us being exceedingly defiled, we are delighted
with what is least so, as extremely pure, while we confine our reflections
within the limits of human corruption. So the eye, accustomed to see
nothing but black, judges that to be very white, which is but whitish, or
perhaps brown. Indeed, the senses of our bodies may assist us in
discovering how grossly we err in estimating the powers of the soul. For
if at noon‐day we look either on the ground, or at any surrounding
objects, we conclude our vision to be very strong and piercing; but when
we raise our eyes and steadily look at the sun, they are at once dazzled
and confounded with such a blaze of brightness, and we are constrained to
confess, that our sight, so piercing in viewing terrestrial things, when
directed to the sun, is dimness itself. Thus also it happens in the
consideration of our spiritual endowments. For as long as our views are
bounded by the earth, perfectly content with our own righteousness,
wisdom, and strength, we fondly flatter ourselves, and fancy we are little
less than demigods. But, if we once elevate our thoughts to God, and
consider his nature, and the consummate perfection of his righteousness,
wisdom, and strength, to which we ought to be conformed,—what before
charmed us in ourselves under the false pretext of righteousness, will
soon be loathed as the greatest iniquity; what strangely deceived us under
the title of wisdom, will be despised as extreme folly; and what wore the
appearance of strength, will be proved to be most wretched impotence. So
very remote from the divine purity is what seems in us the highest
perfection.

III. Hence that horror and amazement with which the Scripture always
represents the saints to have been impressed and disturbed, on every
discovery of the presence of God. For when we see those, who before his
appearance stood secure and firm, so astonished and affrighted at the
manifestation of his glory, as to faint and almost expire through fear,—we
must infer that man is never sufficiently affected with a knowledge of his
own meanness, till he has compared himself with the Divine Majesty. Of
this consternation we have frequent examples in the Judges and Prophets;
so that it was a common expression among the Lord’s people—“We shall die,
because we have seen God.”(62) Therefore the history of Job, to humble men
with a consciousness of their pollution, impotence, and folly, derives its
principal argument from a description of the Divine purity, power, and
wisdom. And not without reason. For we see how Abraham, the nearer he
approached to behold the glory of the Lord, the more fully acknowledged
himself to be but “dust and ashes;”(63) and how Elias(64) could not bear
his approach without covering his face, his appearance is so formidable.
And what can man do, all vile and corrupt, when fear constrains even the
cherubim themselves to veil their faces? This is what the prophet Isaiah
speaks of—“the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the
Lord of hosts shall reign:”(65) that is, when he shall make a fuller and
nearer exhibition of his splendour, it shall eclipse the splendour of the
brightest object besides. But, though the knowledge of God and the
knowledge of ourselves be intimately connected, the proper order of
instruction requires us first to treat of the former, and then to proceed
to the discussion of the latter.

Chapter II. The Nature And Tendency Of The Knowledge Of God.

By the knowledge of God, I intend not merely a notion that there is such a
Being, but also an acquaintance with whatever we ought to know concerning
Him, conducing to his glory and our benefit. For we cannot with propriety
say, there is any knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety. I
have no reference here to that species of knowledge by which men, lost and
condemned in themselves, apprehend God the Redeemer in Christ the
Mediator; but only to that first and simple knowledge, to which the
genuine order of nature would lead us, if Adam had retained his innocence.
For though, in the present ruined state of human nature, no man will ever
perceive God to be a Father, or the Author of salvation, or in any respect
propitious, but as pacified by the mediation of Christ; yet it is one
thing to understand, that God our Maker supports us by his power, governs
us by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and follows us with
blessings of every kind, and another to embrace the grace of
reconciliation proposed to us in Christ. Therefore, since God is first
manifested, both in the structure of the world and in the general tenor of
Scripture, simply as the Creator, and afterwards reveals himself in the
person of Christ as a Redeemer, hence arises a twofold knowledge of him;
of which the former is first to be considered, and the other will follow
in its proper place. For though our mind cannot conceive of God, without
ascribing some worship to him, it will not be sufficient merely to
apprehend that he is the only proper object of universal worship and
adoration, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of all
good, and seek for none but in him. This I maintain, not only because he
sustains the universe, as he once made it, by his infinite power, governs
it by his wisdom, preserves it by his goodness, and especially reigns over
the human race in righteousness and judgment, exercising a merciful
forbearance, and defending them by his protection; but because there
cannot be found the least particle of wisdom, light, righteousness, power,
rectitude, or sincere truth which does not proceed from him, and claim him
for its author: we should therefore learn to expect and supplicate all
these things from him, and thankfully to acknowledge what he gives us. For
this sense of the divine perfections is calculated to teach us piety,
which produces religion. By piety, I mean a reverence and love of God,
arising from a knowledge of his benefits. For, till men are sensible that
they owe every thing to God, that they are supported by his paternal care,
that he is the Author of all the blessings they enjoy, and that nothing
should be sought independently of him, they will never voluntarily submit
to his authority; they will never truly and cordially devote themselves to
his service, unless they rely upon him alone for true felicity.

II. Cold and frivolous, then, are the speculations of those who employ
themselves in disquisitions on the essence of God, when it would be more
interesting to us to become acquainted with his character, and to know
what is agreeable to his nature. For what end is answered by professing,
with Epicurus, that there is a God, who, discarding all concern about the
world, indulges himself in perpetual inactivity? What benefit arises from
the knowledge of a God with whom we have no concern? Our knowledge of God
should rather tend, first, to teach us fear and reverence; and, secondly,
to instruct us to implore all good at his hand, and to render him the
praise of all that we receive. For how can you entertain a thought of God
without immediately reflecting, that, being a creature of his formation,
you must, by right of creation, be subject to his authority? that you are
indebted to him for your life, and that all your actions should be done
with reference to him? If this be true, it certainly follows that your
life is miserably corrupt, unless it be regulated by a desire of obeying
him, since his will ought to be the rule of our conduct. Nor can you have
a clear view of him without discovering him to be the fountain and origin
of all good. This would produce a desire of union to him, and confidence
in him, if the human mind were not seduced by its own depravity from the
right path of investigation. For, even at the first, the pious mind dreams
not of any imaginary deity, but contemplates only the one true God; and,
concerning him, indulges not the fictions of fancy, but, content with
believing him to be such as he reveals himself, uses the most diligent and
unremitting caution, lest it should fall into error by a rash and
presumptuous transgression of his will. He who thus knows him, sensible
that all things are subject to his control, confides in him as his
Guardian and Protector, and unreservedly commits himself to his care.
Assured that he is the author of all blessings, in distress or want he
immediately flies to his protection, and expects his aid. Persuaded of his
goodness and mercy, he relies on him with unlimited confidence, nor doubts
of finding in his clemency a remedy provided for all his evils. Knowing
him to be his Lord and Father, he concludes that he ought to mark his
government in all things, revere his majesty, endeavour to promote his
glory, and obey his commands. Perceiving him to be a just Judge, armed
with severity for the punishment of crimes, he keeps his tribunal always
in view, and is restrained by fear from provoking his wrath. Yet he is not
so terrified at the apprehension of his justice, as to wish to evade it,
even if escape were possible; but loves him as much in punishing the
wicked as in blessing the pious, because he believes it as necessary to
his glory to punish the impious and abandoned, as to reward the righteous
with eternal life. Besides, he restrains himself from sin, not merely from
a dread of vengeance, but because he loves and reveres God as his Father,
honours and worships him as his Lord, and, even though there were no hell,
would shudder at the thought of offending him. See, then, the nature of
pure and genuine religion. It consists in faith, united with a serious
fear of God, comprehending a voluntary reverence, and producing legitimate
worship agreeable to the injunctions of the law. And this requires to be
the more carefully remarked, because men in general render to God a formal
worship, but very few truly reverence him; while great ostentation in
ceremonies is universally displayed, but sincerity of heart is rarely to
be found.

Chapter III. The Human Mind Naturally Endued With The Knowledge Of God.

We lay it down as a position not to be controverted, that the human mind,
even by natural instinct, possesses some sense of a Deity. For that no man
might shelter himself under the pretext of ignorance, God hath given to
all some apprehension of his existence,(66) the memory of which he
frequently and insensibly renews; so that, as men universally know that
there is a God, and that he is their Maker, they must be condemned by
their own testimony, for not having worshipped him and consecrated their
lives to his service. If we seek for ignorance of a Deity, it is nowhere
more likely to be found, than among tribes the most stupid and furthest
from civilization. But, as the celebrated Cicero observes, there is no
nation so barbarous, no race so savage, as not to be firmly persuaded of
the being of a God.(67) Even those who in other respects appear to differ
but little from brutes, always retain some sense of religion; so fully are
the minds of men possessed with this common principle, which is closely
interwoven with their original composition. Now, since there has never
been a country or family, from the beginning of the world, totally
destitute of religion, it is a tacit confession, that some sense of the
Divinity is inscribed on every heart. Of this opinion, idolatry itself
furnishes ample proof. For we know how reluctantly man would degrade
himself to exalt other creatures above him. His preference of worshipping
a piece of wood or stone, to being thought to have no god, evinces the
impression of a Deity on the human mind to be very strong, the
obliteration of which is more difficult than a total change of the natural
disposition; and this is certainly changed, whenever man leaves his
natural pride, and voluntarily descends to such meannesses under the
notion of worshipping God.

II. It is most absurd, then, to pretend, as is asserted by some, that
religion was the contrivance of a few subtle and designing men, a
political machine to confine the simple multitude to their duty, while
those who inculcated the worship of God on others, were themselves far
from believing that any god existed. I confess, indeed, that artful men
have introduced many inventions into religion, to fill the vulgar with
reverence, and strike them with terror, in order to obtain the greater
command over their minds. But this they never could have accomplished, if
the minds of men had not previously been possessed of a firm persuasion of
the existence of God, from which the propensity to religion proceeds. And
that they who cunningly imposed on the illiterate, under the pretext of
religion, were themselves wholly destitute of any knowledge of God, is
quite incredible. For though there were some in ancient times, and many
arise in the present age, who deny the existence of God, yet, in spite of
their reluctance, they are continually receiving proofs of what they
desire to disbelieve. We read of no one guilty of more audacious or
unbridled contempt of the Deity than Caligula; yet no man ever trembled
with greater distress at any instance of Divine wrath, so that he was
constrained to dread the Divinity whom he professed to despise. This you
may always see exemplified in persons of similar character. For the most
audacious contemners of God are most alarmed, even at the noise of a
falling leaf. Whence arises this, but from the vengeance of the Divine
Majesty, smiting their consciences the more powerfully in proportion to
their efforts to fly from it? They try every refuge to hide themselves
from the Lord’s presence, and to efface it from their minds; but their
attempts to elude it are all in vain. Though it may seem to disappear for
a moment, it presently returns with increased violence; so that, if they
have any remission of the anguish of conscience, it resembles the sleep of
persons intoxicated, or subject to frenzy, who enjoy no placid rest while
sleeping, being continually harassed with horrible and tremendous dreams.
The impious themselves, therefore, exemplify the observation, that the
idea of a God is never lost in the human mind.

III. It will always be evident to persons of correct judgment, that the
idea of a Deity impressed on the mind of man is indelible. That all have
by nature an innate persuasion of the Divine existence, a persuasion
inseparable from their very constitution, we have abundant evidence in the
contumacy of the wicked, whose furious struggles to extricate themselves
from the fear of God are unavailing. Though Diagoras, and others like him,
turn to ridicule what all ages have believed of religion;(68) though
Dionysius scoff at the judgment of Heaven,—it is but a forced laughter,
for the worm of a guilty conscience torments them within, worse than if
they were seared with hot irons. I agree not with Cicero, that errors in
process of time become obsolete, and that religion is increased and
ameliorated daily. For the world, as will shortly be observed, uses its
utmost endeavours to banish all knowledge of God, and tries every method
of corrupting his worship. I only maintain, that while the stupid
insensibility which the wicked wish to acquire, to promote their contempt
of God, preys upon their minds, yet the sense of a Deity, which they
ardently desire to extinguish, is still strong, and frequently discovers
itself. Whence we infer, that this is a doctrine, not first to be learned
in the schools, but which every man from his birth is self‐taught, and
which, though many strain every nerve to banish it from them, yet nature
itself permits none to forget. Now, if the end for which all men are born
and live, be to know God,—and unless the knowledge of God have reached
this point, it is uncertain and vain,—it is evident, that all who direct
not every thought and action of life to this end, are degenerated from the
law of their creation. Of this the heathen philosophers themselves were
not ignorant. This was Plato’s meaning, when he taught that the chief good
of the soul consists in similitude to God, when the soul, having a clear
knowledge of him, is wholly transformed into his likeness.(69) The
reasoning also of Gryllus, in Plutarch, is very accurate, when he affirms,
that men entirely destitute of religion, not only do not excel the brutes,
but are in many respects far more wretched, being obnoxious to evil under
so many forms, and always dragging on a tumultuous and restless life. The
worship of God is therefore the only thing which renders men superior to
brutes, and makes them aspire to immortality.

Chapter IV. This Knowledge Extinguished Or Corrupted, Partly By Ignorance,
Partly By Wickedness.

While experience testifies that the seeds of religion are sown by God in
every heart, we scarcely find one man in a hundred who cherishes what he
has received, and not one in whom they grow to maturity, much less bear
fruit in due season. Some perhaps grow vain in their own superstitions,
while others revolt from God with intentional wickedness; but all
degenerate from the true knowledge of him. The fact is, that no genuine
piety remains in the world. But, in saying that some fall into
superstition through error, I would not insinuate that their ignorance
excuses them from guilt; because their blindness is always connected with
pride, vanity, and contumacy. Pride and vanity are discovered, when
miserable men, in seeking after God, rise not, as they ought, above their
own level, but judge of him according to their carnal stupidity, and leave
the proper path of investigation in pursuit of speculations as vain as
they are curious. Their conceptions of him are formed, not according to
the representations he gives of himself, but by the inventions of their
own presumptuous imaginations. This gulf being opened, whatever course
they take, they must be rushing forwards to destruction. None of their
subsequent attempts for the worship or service of God can be considered as
rendered to him; because they worship not him, but a figment of their own
brains in his stead. This depravity Paul expressly remarks: “Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools.”(70) He had before said, “they
became vain in their imaginations.” But lest any should exculpate them, he
adds that they were deservedly blinded, because, not content within the
bounds of sobriety, but arrogating to themselves more than was right, they
wilfully darkened, and even infatuated themselves with pride, vanity, and
perverseness. Whence it follows, that their folly is inexcusable, which
originates not only in a vain curiosity, but in false confidence, and an
immoderate desire to exceed the limits of human knowledge.

II. David’s assertion, that “the fool hath said in his heart, There is no
God,”(71) is primarily, as we shall soon see in another place, to be
restricted to those who extinguish the light of nature, and wilfully
stupefy themselves. For we see many, become hardened by bold and habitual
transgressions, striving to banish all remembrance of God, which the
instinct of nature is still suggesting to their minds. To render their
madness more detestable, he introduces them as expressly denying the
existence of God; not that they deprive him of his being, but because they
rob him of his justice and providence, shutting him up as an idler in
heaven. Now, as nothing would be more inconsistent with Deity, than to
abandon the government of the world, leave it to fortune, and connive at
the crimes of men, that they might wanton with impunity,—whoever
extinguishes all fear of the heavenly judgment, and indulges himself in
security, denies that there is any God. After the impious have wilfully
shut their own eyes, it is the righteous vengeance of God upon them, to
darken their understandings, so that, seeing, they may not perceive.(72)
David is the best interpreter of his own meaning, in another place, where
he says, “The wicked have no fear of God before their eyes;”(73) and
again, that they encourage themselves in their iniquities with the
flattering persuasion that God doth not see them.(74) Though they are
constrained to acknowledge the existence of God, yet they rob him of his
glory, by detracting from his power. For as God, according to the
testimony of Paul, “cannot deny himself,”(75) because he perpetually
remains like himself,—those who feign him to be a vain and lifeless image,
are truly said to deny God. It must also be remarked, that, though they
strive against their own natural understanding, and desire not only to
banish him thence, but even to annihilate him in heaven, their
insensibility can never prevail, so as to prevent God from sometimes
recalling them to his tribunal. But as no dread restrains them from
violent opposition to the divine will, it is evident, as long as they are
carried away with such a blind impetuosity, that they are governed by a
brutish forgetfulness of God.

III. Thus is overthrown the vain excuse pleaded by many for their
superstition; for they satisfy themselves with any attention to religion,
however preposterous, not considering that the Divine Will is the
perpetual rule to which true religion ought to be conformed; that God ever
continues like himself; that he is no spectre or phantasm, to be
metamorphosed according to the fancy of every individual. It is easy to
see how superstition mocks God with hypocritical services, while it
attempts to please him. For, embracing only those things which he declares
he disregards, it either contemptuously practises, or even openly rejects,
what he prescribes and declares to be pleasing in his sight. Persons who
introduce newly‐invented methods of worshipping God, really worship and
adore the creature of their distempered imaginations; for they would never
have dared to trifle in such a manner with God, if they had not first
feigned a god conformable to their own false and foolish notions.
Wherefore the apostle pronounces a vague and unsettled notion concerning
the Deity to be ignorance of God. “When ye knew not God, (says he,) ye did
service unto them which by nature were no gods.”(76) And in another place
he speaks of the Ephesians as having been “without God,”(77) while they
were strangers to a right knowledge of the only true God. Nor, in this
respect, is it of much importance, whether you imagine to yourself one god
or more; for in either case you depart and revolt from the true God, and,
forsaking him, you have nothing left you but an execrable idol. We must
therefore decide, with Lactantius, that there is no legitimate religion
unconnected with truth.

IV. Another sin is, that they never think of God but against their
inclinations, nor approach him till their reluctance is overcome by
constraint; and then they are influenced, not by a voluntary fear,
proceeding from reverence of the Divine Majesty, but by a servile and
constrained fear, extorted by the divine judgment, which they dread
because it is inevitable, at the same time that they hate it. Now, to
impiety, and to this species of it alone, is applicable that assertion of
Statius, that fear first made gods in the world.(78) They, whose minds are
alienated from the righteousness of God, earnestly desire the subversion
of that tribunal, which they know to be established for the punishment of
transgressions against it. With this disposition, they wage war against
the Lord, who cannot be deprived of his judgment; but when they apprehend
his irresistible arm to be impending over their heads, unable to avert or
evade it, they tremble with fear. That they may not seem altogether to
despise him, whose majesty troubles them, they practise some form of
religion; at the same time not ceasing to pollute themselves with vices of
every kind, and to add one flagitious act to another, till they have
violated every part of God’s holy law, and dissipated all its
righteousness. It is certain, at least, that they are not prevented by
that pretended fear of God from enjoying pleasure and satisfaction in
their sins, practising self‐adulation, and preferring the indulgence of
their own carnal intemperance to the salutary restraints of the Holy
Spirit. But that being a false and vain shadow of religion, and scarcely
worthy even to be called its shadow,—it is easy to infer the wide
difference between such a confused notion of God, and the piety which is
instilled only into the minds of the faithful, and is the source of
religion. Yet hypocrites, who are flying from God, resort to the artifices
of superstition, for the sake of appearing devoted to him. For whereas the
whole tenor of their life ought to be a perpetual course of obedience to
him, they make no scruple of rebelling against him in almost all their
actions, only endeavouring to appease him with a few paltry sacrifices.
Whereas he ought to be served with sanctity of life and integrity of
heart, they invent frivolous trifles and worthless observances, to
conciliate his favour. They abandon themselves to their impurities with
the greater licentiousness, because they confide in being able to
discharge all their duty to him by ridiculous expiations. In a word,
whereas their confidence ought to be placed on him, they neglect him, and
depend upon themselves or on other creatures. At length they involve
themselves in such a vast accumulation of errors, that those sparks which
enable them to discover the glory of God are smothered, and at last
extinguished by the criminal darkness of iniquity. That seed, which it is
impossible to eradicate, a sense of the existence of a Deity, yet remains;
but so corrupted as to produce only the worst of fruits. Yet this is a
further proof of what I now contend for, that an idea of God is naturally
engraved on the hearts of men, since necessity extorts a confession of it,
even from reprobates themselves. In the moment of tranquillity, they
facetiously mock the Divine Being, and with loquacious impertinence
derogate from his power. But if any despair oppress them, it stimulates
them to seek him, and dictates concise prayers, which prove that they are
not altogether ignorant of God, but that what ought to have appeared
before had been suppressed by obstinacy.

Chapter V. The Knowledge Of God Conspicuous In The Formation And Continual
Government Of The World.

As the perfection of a happy life consists in the knowledge of God, that
no man might be precluded from attaining felicity, God hath not only sown
in the minds of men the seed of religion, already mentioned, but hath
manifested himself in the formation of every part of the world, and daily
presents himself to public view, in such a manner, that they cannot open
their eyes without being constrained to behold him. His essence indeed is
incomprehensible, so that his Majesty is not to be perceived by the human
senses; but on all his works he hath inscribed his glory in characters so
clear, unequivocal, and striking, that the most illiterate and stupid
cannot exculpate themselves by the plea of ignorance. The Psalmist
therefore, with great propriety, exclaims, “He covereth himself with light
as with a garment;”(79) as if he had said, that his first appearance in
visible apparel was at the creation of the world, when he displayed those
glories which are still conspicuous on every side. In the same place, the
Psalmist compares the expanded heavens to a royal pavilion;—he says that
“he layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters; maketh the clouds his
chariot; walketh upon the wings of the wind;” and maketh the winds and the
lightnings his swift messengers. And because the glory of his power and
wisdom is more refulgently displayed above, heaven is generally called his
palace. And, in the first place, whithersoever you turn your eyes, there
is not an atom of the world in which you cannot behold some brilliant
sparks at least of his glory. But you cannot at one view take a survey of
this most ample and beautiful machine in all its vast extent, without
being completely overwhelmed with its infinite splendour. Wherefore the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews elegantly represents the worlds as
the manifestations of invisible things;(80) for the exact symmetry of the
universe is a mirror, in which we may contemplate the otherwise invisible
God. For which reason the Psalmist(81) attributes to the celestial bodies
a language universally known; for they afford a testimony of the Deity too
evident to escape the observation even of the most ignorant people in the
world. But the Apostle more distinctly asserts this manifestation to men
of what was useful to be known concerning God; “for the invisible things
of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead.”(82)

II. Of his wonderful wisdom, both heaven and earth contain innumerable
proofs; not only those more abstruse things, which are the subjects of
astronomy, medicine, and the whole science of physics, but those things
which force themselves on the view of the most illiterate of mankind, so
that they cannot open their eyes without being constrained to witness
them. Adepts, indeed, in those liberal arts, or persons just initiated
into them, are thereby enabled to proceed much further in investigating
the secrets of Divine Wisdom. Yet ignorance of those sciences prevents no
man from such a survey of the workmanship of God, as is more than
sufficient to excite his admiration of the Divine Architect. In
disquisitions concerning the motions of the stars, in fixing their
situations, measuring their distances, and distinguishing their peculiar
properties, there is need of skill, exactness, and industry; and the
providence of God being more clearly revealed by these discoveries, the
mind ought to rise to a sublimer elevation for the contemplation of his
glory. But since the meanest and most illiterate of mankind, who are
furnished with no other assistance than their own eyes, cannot be ignorant
of the excellence of the Divine skill, exhibiting itself in that endless,
yet regular variety of the innumerable celestial host,—it is evident, that
the Lord abundantly manifests his wisdom to every individual on earth.
Thus it belongs to a man of preëminent ingenuity to examine, with the
critical exactness of Galen, the connection, the symmetry, the beauty, and
the use of the various parts of the human body. But the composition of the
human body is universally acknowledged to be so ingenious, as to render
its Maker the object of deserved admiration.

III. And therefore some of the philosophers(83) of antiquity have justly
called man a microcosm, or world in miniature; because he is an eminent
specimen of the power, goodness, and wisdom of God, and contains in him
wonders enough to occupy the attention of our minds, if we are not
indisposed to such a study. For this reason, Paul, having remarked that
the blind “might feel after God and find him,” immediately adds, that “he
is not far from every one of us;”(84) because every man has undoubtedly an
inward perception of the celestial goodness, by which he is quickened. But
if, to attain some ideas of God, it be not necessary for us to go beyond
ourselves, what an unpardonable indolence is it in those who will not
descend into themselves that they may find him! For the same reason,
David, having briefly celebrated the wonderful name and honour of God,
which are universally conspicuous, immediately exclaims, “What is man,
that thou art mindful of him?”(85) Again, “Out of the mouths of babes and
sucklings thou hast ordained strength.” Thus declaring not only that the
human race is a clear mirror of the works of God, but that even infants at
the breast have tongues so eloquent for the publication of his glory, that
there is no necessity for other orators; whence he hesitates not to
produce them as fully capable of confuting the madness of those whose
diabolical pride would wish to extinguish the name of God. Hence also what
Paul quotes from Aratus, that “we are the offspring of God;”(86) since his
adorning us with such great excellence has proved him to be our Father.
So, from the dictates of common sense and experience, the heathen poets
called him the Father of men. Nor will any man freely devote himself to
the service of God, unless he have been allured to love and reverence him,
by first experiencing his paternal love.

IV. But herein appears the vile ingratitude of men—that, while they ought
to be proclaiming the praises of God for the wonderful skill displayed in
their formation, and the inestimable bounties he bestows on them, they are
only inflated with the greater pride. They perceive how wonderfully God
works within them, and experience teaches them what a variety of blessings
they receive from his liberality. They are constrained to know, whether
willingly or not, that these are proofs of his divinity: yet they suppress
this knowledge in their hearts. Indeed, they need not go out of
themselves, provided they do not, by arrogating to themselves what is
given from heaven, smother the light which illuminates their minds to a
clearer discovery of God. Even in the present day, there are many men of
monstrous dispositions, who hesitate not to pervert all the seeds of
divinity sown in the nature of man, in order to bury in oblivion the name
of God. How detestable is this frenzy, that man, discovering in his body
and soul a hundred vestiges of God, should make this very excellence a
pretext for the denial of his being! They will not say that they are
distinguished from the brutes by chance; but they ascribe it to nature,
which they consider as the author of all things, and remove God out of
sight. They perceive most exquisite workmanship in all their members, from
the head to the feet. Here also they substitute nature in the place of
God. But above all, the rapid motions of the soul, its noble faculties,
and excellent talents, discover a Divinity not easily concealed; unless
the Epicureans, like the Cyclops, from this eminence should audaciously
wage war against God. Do all the treasures of heavenly wisdom concur in
the government of a worm five feet in length? and shall the universe be
destitute of this privilege? To state that there is in the soul a certain
machinery corresponding to every part of the body, is so far from
obscuring the divine glory, that it is rather an illustration of it. Let
Epicurus answer; what concourse of atoms in the concoction of food and
drink distributes part into excrements and part into blood, and causes the
several members to perform their different offices with as much diligence
as if so many souls by common consent governed one body?

V. But my present concern is not with that sty of swines: I rather address
those who, influenced by preposterous subtilties, would indirectly employ
that frigid dogma of Aristotle to destroy the immortality of the soul, and
deprive God of his rights. For, because the organs of the body are
directed by the faculties of the soul, they pretend the soul to be so
united to the body as to be incapable of subsisting without it; and by
their eulogies of nature do all they can to suppress the name of God. But
the powers of the soul are far from being limited to functions subservient
to the body. For what concern has the body in measuring the heavens,
counting the number of the stars, computing their several magnitudes, and
acquiring a knowledge of their respective distances, of the celerity or
tardiness of their courses, and of the degrees of their various
declinations? I grant, indeed, the usefulness of astronomy, but only
remark that, in these profound researches relating to the celestial orbs,
there is no corporeal coöperation, but that the soul has its functions
distinct from the body. I have proposed one example, whence inferences may
readily be drawn by the readers. The manifold agility of the soul, which
enables it to take a survey of heaven and earth; to join the past and the
present; to retain the memory of things heard long ago; to conceive of
whatever it chooses by the help of imagination; its ingenuity also in the
invention of such admirable arts,—are certain proofs of the divinity in
man. Besides, in sleep, it not only turns and moves itself round, but
conceives many useful ideas, reasons on various subjects, and even divines
future events. What shall we say, but that the vestiges of immortality
impressed upon man are absolutely indelible? Now, what reason can be
given, why man, who is of divine original, should not acknowledge his
Creator? Shall we indeed, by the judgment with which we are endued,
discern right from wrong, and shall there be no judge in heaven? Shall we,
even in our sleep, have some remains of intelligence, and shall there be
no God to govern the world? Shall we be esteemed the inventers of so many
useful arts, that God may be defrauded of his praise? Whereas experience
abundantly teaches, that all we have is variously distributed to us by
some superior Being. The clamour of some, about a secret inspiration
animating the whole world, is not only weak, but altogether profane. They
are pleased with the celebrated passage of Virgil—

“Know, first, a spirit, with an active flame,
Fills, feeds, and animates this mighty frame;
Runs through the watery worlds, the fields of air,
The ponderous earth, the depths of heaven; and there
Glows in the sun and moon, and burns in every star.
Thus, mingling with the mass, the general soul
Lives in the parts, and agitates the whole.
From that celestial energy began
The low‐browed brute, th’ imperial race of man,
The painted birds who wing th’ aërial plain,
And all the mighty monsters of the main;
Their souls at first from high Olympus came,” &c.(87)

Just as if the world, which is a theatre erected for displaying the glory
of God, were its own creator! For thus writes the same poet in another
place, following the common opinion of the Greeks and Latins—

“Led by such wonders, sages have opined,
That bees have portions of a heavenly mind;
That God pervades, and, like one common soul,
Fills, feeds, and animates the world’s great whole;
That flocks, herds, beasts, and men, from him receive
Their vital breath; in him all move and live;
That souls discerpt from him shall never die,
But back resolved to God and heaven shall fly,
And live for ever in the starry sky.”(88)

See the efficacy of that jejune speculation concerning a universal mind
animating and actuating the world, in the production and encouragement of
piety in the human heart. This more fully appears also from the profane
expressions of the filthy Lucretius, which are deductions from the same
principle.(89) Its true tendency is to set up a shadowy deity, and to
banish all ideas of the true God, the proper object of fear and worship. I
confess, indeed, that the expression, that nature is God, may be used in a
pious sense by a pious mind; but, as it is harsh and inconsistent with
strict propriety of speech, nature being rather an order prescribed by
God, it is dangerous in matters so momentous, and demanding peculiar
caution, to confound the Deity with the inferior course of his works.

VI. Let us remember, then, in every consideration of our own nature, that
there is one God, who governs all natures, and who expects us to regard
him, to direct our faith to him, to worship and invoke him. For nothing is
more preposterous than to enjoy such splendid advantages, which proclaim
within us their divine origin, and to neglect the Author who bountifully
bestows them. Now, what illustrious specimens of his power have we to
arrest our attention! unless it be possible for us not to know what
strength is required to sustain with his word this immense fabric of
heaven and earth; now by his mere nod to shake the heaven with roaring
peals of thunder, to consume whatever he choose with lightnings, and set
the atmosphere on fire with the flame; now to disturb it with tempests in
various forms, and immediately, if he please, to compose all to
instantaneous serenity; to restrain, suspended as it were in air, the sea,
which, by its elevation, seems to threaten the earth with continual
devastation; now raising it in a tremendous manner, by the tumultuous
violence of the winds, and now appeasing the waves to render it calm. To
this purpose are the numerous praises of the power of God, drawn from the
testimonies of nature, particularly in the book of Job, and in the
prophecies of Isaiah; which I now purposely omit, as they will be more
suitably introduced, when I discuss the scriptural account of the creation
of the world. Only I wished at present to hint, that this way of seeking
God, by tracing the lineaments which, both above and below us, exhibit
such a lively adumbration of him, is common to aliens, and to those who
belong to his family. His power leads us to the consideration of his
eternity; because he, from whom all things derive their origin, must
necessarily be eternal and self‐existent. But if we inquire the reason
that induced him first to create all things, and now to preserve them, we
shall find the sole cause to be his own goodness. But though this be the
only cause, it should be more than sufficient to attract us to love him;
since, according to the Psalmist,(90) there is no creature that does not
participate in the effusions of his mercy.

VII. In the second species of his works, such as happen out of the
ordinary course of nature, the proofs of his perfections are equally
clear. For he so regulates his providence in the government of human
society, that, while he exhibits, in innumerable ways, his benignity and
beneficence to all, he likewise declares, by evident and daily
indications, his clemency to the pious, and his severity to the wicked and
ungodly. For no doubt can be entertained respecting his punishment of
flagitious crimes; inasmuch as he clearly demonstrates himself to be the
guardian and avenger of innocence, in prospering with his blessing the
life of good men, in assisting their necessities, assuaging and comforting
their sorrows, alleviating their calamities, and providing in all things
for their safety. Nor should it perplex or eclipse his perpetual rule of
righteousness, that he frequently permits the wicked and guilty for a time
to exult in impunity; but suffers good men to be undeservedly harassed
with much adversity, and even to be oppressed by the iniquitous malice of
the ungodly. We ought rather to make a very different reflection; that,
when he clearly manifests his wrath in the punishment of one sin, he hates
all sins; and that, since he now passes by many sins unpunished, there
will be a judgment hereafter, till which the punishment is deferred. So,
also, what ample occasion he supplies us for the consideration of his
mercy, while, with unwearied benignity, he pursues the miserable, calling
them back to himself with more than paternal indulgence, till his
beneficence overcomes their depravity!

VIII. To this end the Psalmist,(91) mentioning that God, in desperate
cases, suddenly and wonderfully succors, beyond all expectation, those who
are miserable and ready to perish, either protecting from beasts of prey
such as are wandering in deserts, and, at length, reconducting them into
the right way, or supplying with food the needy and hungry, or delivering
captives from dreary dungeons and iron chains, or bringing the shipwrecked
safe into port, or healing the diseases of some who are almost dead, or
scorching the earth with excessive heat and drought, or fertilizing it
with the secret showers of his mercy, or elevating the meanest of the
vulgar, or degrading nobles from their dignified stations,—the Psalmist, I
say, having proposed such examples as these, infers from them that what
are accounted fortuitous accidents, are so many proofs of his heavenly
providence, especially of his paternal clemency; and that hence the pious
have cause to rejoice, while the mouths of the impious and reprobate are
stopped. But, since the majority of men, immersed in their errors, are
blind amidst the greatest opportunities of seeing, he accounts it a rare
instance of singular wisdom discreetly to consider these works of God;(92)
from the sight of which, some, who, in other instances, discover the
greatest acuteness, receive no benefit. And, notwithstanding all the
displays of the glory of God, scarcely one man in a hundred, is really a
spectator of it. His power and wisdom are equally conspicuous. His power
is illustriously manifested, when the ferocity of the impious, universally
deemed insuperable, is quelled in an instant, their arrogance subdued,
their strongest fortresses demolished, their weapons and armour broken in
pieces, their strength diminished, their machinations confounded, and they
fall by their own exertions; when the audacity, which exalted itself above
the heavens, is thrown down to the centre of the earth; when, on the
contrary, “the poor are raised out of the dust, and the needy out of the
dunghill;”(93) the oppressed and afflicted extricated from distressing
extremities, and the desperate restored to a good hope; when the unarmed
are victorious over those who are armed, the few over the many, the weak
over the strong. But his wisdom is eminently displayed in ordering every
dispensation at the best possible time, confounding the greatest worldly
sagacity, “taking the wise in their own craftiness,”(94) and finally
disposing all things according to the dictates of the highest reason.

IX. We see that there is no need of any long or laborious argumentation,
to obtain and produce testimonies for illustrating and asserting the
Divine Majesty; since, from the few which we have selected and cursorily
mentioned, it appears that they are every where so evident and obvious, as
easily to be distinguished by the eyes, and pointed out with the fingers.
And here it must again be observed, that we are invited to a knowledge of
God; not such as, content with empty speculation, merely floats in the
brain, but such as will be solid and fruitful, if rightly received and
rooted in our hearts. For the Lord is manifested by his perfections:
perceiving the influence and enjoying the benefits of which, we must
necessarily be more acutely impressed with such a knowledge, than if we
imagined a Deity of whose influence we had no perception. Whence we
conclude this to be the right way, and the best method of seeking God; not
with presumptuous curiosity to attempt an examination of his essence,
which is rather to be adored than too curiously investigated; but to
contemplate him in his works, in which he approaches and familiarizes,
and, in some measure, communicates himself to us. To this the Apostle
referred, when he said, that he is not to be sought far off, since, by his
attribute of omnipresence, he dwells in every one of us.(95) Therefore
David, having before confessed his greatness ineffable, after he descends
to the mention of his works, adds, that he will “declare this
greatness.”(96) Wherefore it becomes us also to apply ourselves to such an
investigation of God, as may fill our understanding with admiration, and
powerfully interest our feelings. And, as Augustine somewhere teaches,
being incapable of comprehending him, and fainting, as it were, under his
immensity, we must take a view of his works, that we may be refreshed with
his goodness.(97)

X. Now, such a knowledge ought not only to excite us to the worship of
God, but likewise to awaken and arouse us to the hope of a future life.
For when we consider, that the specimens given by the Lord, both of his
clemency and of his severity, are only begun, and not completed, we
certainly should esteem these as preludes to greater things, of which the
manifestation and full exhibition are deferred to another life. When we
see that pious men are loaded with afflictions by the impious, harassed
with injuries, oppressed with calumnies, and vexed with contumelious and
opprobrious treatment; that the wicked, on the contrary, flourish,
prosper, obtain ease and dignity, and all with impunity,—we should
immediately conclude, that there is another life, to which is reserved the
vengeance due to iniquity, and the reward of righteousness. Moreover, when
we observe the faithful frequently chastised by the Lord’s rod, we may
conclude, with great certainty, that the impious shall not always escape
his vengeance. For that is a wise observation of Augustine—“If open
punishment were now inflicted for every sin, it would be supposed that
nothing would be reserved till the last judgment. Again, if God now did
not openly punish any sin, it would be presumed that there was no divine
providence.”(98) It must therefore be confessed, that in each of the works
of God, but more especially in the whole considered together, there is a
bright exhibition of the divine perfections; by which the whole human race
is invited and allured to the knowledge of God, and thence to true and
complete felicity. But, though those perfections are most luminously
portrayed around us, we only discover their principal tendency, their use,
and the end of our contemplation of them, when we descend into our own
selves, and consider by what means God displays in us his life, wisdom,
and power, and exercises towards us his righteousness, goodness, and
mercy. For, though David justly complains that unbelievers are fools,
because they consider not the profound designs of God in the government of
mankind,(99) yet there is much truth in what he says in another place—that
the wonders of Divine Wisdom in this respect exceed in number the hairs of
our head.(100) But as this argument must be treated more at large in due
course, I at present omit it.

XI. But, notwithstanding the clear representations given by God in the
mirror of his works, both of himself and of his everlasting dominion, such
is our stupidity, that, always inattentive to these obvious testimonies,
we derive no advantage from them. For, with regard to the structure and
very beautiful organization of the world, how few of us are there, who,
when lifting up their eyes to heaven, or looking round on the various
regions of the earth, direct their minds to the remembrance of the
Creator, and do not rather content themselves with a view of his works, to
the total neglect of their Author! And with respect to those things that
daily happen out of the ordinary course of nature, is it not the general
opinion, that men are rolled and whirled about by the blind temerity of
fortune, rather than governed by the providence of God? Or if, by the
guidance and direction of these things, we are ever driven (as all men
must sometimes be) to the consideration of a God, yet, when we have rashly
conceived an idea of some deity, we soon slide into our own carnal dreams,
or depraved inventions, corrupting by our vanity the purity of divine
truth. We differ from one another, in that each individual imbibes some
peculiarity of error; but we perfectly agree in a universal departure from
the one true God, to preposterous trifles. This disease affects, not only
the vulgar and ignorant, but the most eminent, and those who, in other
things, discover peculiar sagacity. How abundantly have all the
philosophers, in this respect, betrayed their stupidity and folly! For, to
spare others, chargeable with greater absurdities, Plato himself, the most
religious and judicious of them all, loses himself in his round
globe.(101) And what would not befall others, when their principal men,
whose place it was to enlighten the rest, stumble upon such gross errors!
So also, while the government of human actions proves a providence too
plainly to admit of a denial, men derive no more advantage from it, than
if they believed all things to be agitated forwards and backwards by the
uncertain caprice of fortune; so great is our propensity to vanity and
error! I speak exclusively of the excellent of mankind, not of the vulgar,
whose madness in the profanation of divine truth has known no bounds.

XII. Hence that immense flood of errors, which has deluged the whole
world. For every man’s understanding is like a labyrinth to him; so that
it is not to be wondered at, that the different nations were drawn aside
into various inventions, and even that almost every individual had his own
particular deity. For, amidst the union of temerity and wantonness with
ignorance and darkness, scarcely a man could be found who did not frame to
himself some idol or phantasm instead of God. Indeed, the immense
multitude of gods proceeding from the mind of man, resembles the
ebullition of waters from a vast and ample spring, while every one, with
an extreme licentiousness of error, invents one thing or another
concerning God himself. It is not necessary here to compose a catalogue of
the superstitions which have perplexed the world; for it would be an
endless task; and, without a word more being said, the horrible blindness
of the human mind sufficiently appears from such a multiplicity of
corruptions. I pass over the rude and unlearned vulgar. But among the
philosophers,(102) who attempted with reason and learning to penetrate
heaven, how shameful is the diversity! In proportion to the vigour of his
natural genius, and the polish acquired by art and science, each of them
seemed to give the more specious colouring to his own opinion; but, on a
close inspection, you will find them all fading colours. The Stoics said,
in their own opinion very shrewdly, that from all the parts of nature may
be collected various names of God, but yet that the one God is not
therefore divided;(103) as if we were not already too much inclined to
vanity, without being further and more violently seduced into error, by
the notion of such a various abundance of gods. The mystical theology of
the Egyptians also shows that they all sedulously endeavoured to preserve
the appearance of reason in the midst of their folly.(104) And any thing
apparently probable might at first sight, perhaps, deceive the simple and
incautious; but there never was any human invention by which religion was
not basely corrupted. And this confused diversity imboldened the
Epicureans, and other gross despisers of piety, to reject all idea of God.
For, seeing the wisest of men contending with each other for contrary
opinions, they hesitated not, from their dissensions, and from the
frivolous and absurd doctrines maintained by the different parties, to
infer, that it was vain and foolish for men to torment themselves with
investigations concerning God, who does not exist. And this they thought
they might do with impunity, supposing that a compendious denial of any
God at all would be better than feigning uncertain gods, and thereby
occasioning endless controversies. They reason very ignorantly, or rather
endeavour to conceal their own impiety behind the ignorance of men, which
not at all justifies any encroachment on God. But from the general
confession, that there is no subject productive of so many dissensions
among the learned as well as the unlearned, it is inferred, that the minds
of men, which err so much in investigations concerning God, are extremely
blind and stupid in celestial mysteries. Others commend the answer of
Simonides,(105) who, being asked by Hiero the Tyrant what God was,
requested a day to consider it. When the tyrant, the next day, repeated
the inquiry, he begged to be allowed two days longer; and, having often
doubled the number of days, at length answered, “The longer I consider the
subject, the more obscure it appears to me.” He prudently suspended his
opinion on a subject so obscure to him; yet this shows that men, who are
taught only by nature, have no certain, sound, or distinct knowledge, but
are confined to confused principles; so that they worship an unknown God.

XIII. Now, it must also be maintained, that whoever adulterates the pure
religion, (which must necessarily be the case of all who are influenced by
their own imagination,) he is guilty of a departure from the one God. They
will profess, indeed, a different intention; but what they intend, or what
they persuade themselves, is of little importance; since the Holy Spirit
pronounces all to be apostates, who, in the darkness of their minds,
substitute demons in the place of God. For this reason Paul declares the
Ephesians to have been “without God”(106)—till they had learned from the
gospel the worship of the true God. Nor should this be restricted to one
nation only, since, in another place, he asserts of men in general, that
they “became vain in their imaginations,”(107) after the majesty of the
Creator had been discovered to them in the structure of the world. And
therefore the Scripture, to make room for the only true God, condemns, as
false and lying, whatever was formerly worshipped as divine among the
Gentiles,(108) and leaves no Deity but in Mount Sion, where flourished the
peculiar knowledge of God. Indeed, among the Gentiles, the Samaritans, in
the days of Christ, seemed to approach very nearly to true piety; yet we
hear, from the mouth of Christ, that they “worshipped they knew not
what;”(109) whence it follows, that they were under a vain and erroneous
delusion. In fine, though they were not all the subjects of gross vices,
or open idolaters, there was no pure and approved religion, their notions
being founded only in common sense. For, though there were a few
uninfected with the madness of the vulgar, this assertion of Paul remains
unshaken, that “none of the princes of this world knew the wisdom of
God.”(110) But if the most exalted have been involved in the darkness of
error, what must be said of the dregs of the people! Wherefore it is not
surprising if the Holy Spirit reject, as spurious, every form of worship
which is of human contrivance; because, in the mysteries of heaven, an
opinion acquired by human means, though it may not always produce an
immense mass of errors, yet always produces some. And though no worse
consequence follow, it is no trivial fault to worship, at an uncertainty,
an unknown god; of which, however, Christ pronounces all to be guilty who
have not been taught by the law what god they ought to worship. And indeed
the best legislators have proceeded no further than to declare religion to
be founded upon common consent. And even Socrates, in Xenophon,(111)
praises the answer of Apollo, which directed that every man should worship
the gods according to the rites of his country, and the custom of his own
city. But whence had mortals this right of determining, by their own
authority, what far exceeds all the world? or who could so acquiesce in
the decrees of the rulers or the ordinances of the people, as without
hesitation to receive a god delivered to him by the authority of man?
Every man will rather abide by his own judgment, than be subject to the
will of another. Since, then, the following of the custom of a city, or
the consent of antiquity, in divine worship, is too weak and frail a bond
of piety, it remains for God himself to give a revelation concerning
himself from heaven.

XIV. Vain, therefore, is the light afforded us in the formation of the
world to illustrate the glory of its Author; which, though its rays be
diffused all around us, is insufficient to conduct us into the right way.
Some sparks, indeed, are kindled, but smothered before they have emitted
any great degree of light. Wherefore the Apostle, in the place before
cited, says, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God;”(112) thus intimating, that the invisible Deity was
represented by such visible objects, yet that we have no eyes to discern
him, unless they be illuminated through faith by an internal revelation of
God. Nor does Paul, where he observes, that “that which may be known of
God is manifest”(113) in the creation of the world, design such a
manifestation as human sagacity may comprehend; but rather shows, that its
utmost extent is to render men inexcusable. The same writer also, though
in one place(114) he denies that God is to be traced far off, seeing he
dwells within us, yet teaches, in another place,(115) the consequences of
such a proximity. God, says he, “in times past suffered all nations to
walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness,
in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons,
filling our hearts with food and gladness.”(116) Though the Lord, then, is
not destitute of a testimony concerning himself, while with various and
most abundant benignity he sweetly allures mankind to a knowledge of him,
yet they persist in following their own ways, their pernicious and fatal
errors.

XV. But whatever deficiency of natural ability prevents us from attaining
the pure and clear knowledge of God, yet, since that deficiency arises
from our own fault, we are left without any excuse. Nor indeed can we set
up any pretence of ignorance, that will prevent our own consciences from
perpetually accusing us of indolence and ingratitude. Truly it would be a
defence worthy to be admitted, if a man should plead that he wanted ears
to hear the truth, for the publication of which even the mute creatures
are supplied with most melodious voices; if he should allege that his eyes
are not capable of seeing what is demonstrated by the creatures without
the help of the eyes; if he should plead mental imbecility, while all the
irrational creatures instruct us. Wherefore we are justly excluded from
all excuse for our uncertain and extravagant deviations, since all things
conspire to show us the right way. But, however men are chargeable with
sinfully corrupting the seeds of divine knowledge, which, by the wonderful
operation of nature, are sown in their hearts, so that they produce no
good and fair crop, yet it is beyond a doubt, that the simple testimony
magnificently borne by the creatures to the glory of God, is very
insufficient for our instruction. For as soon as a survey of the world has
just shown us a deity, neglecting the true God, we set up in his stead the
dreams and phantasms of our own brains; and confer on them the praise of
righteousness, wisdom, goodness, and power, due to him. We either obscure
his daily acts, or pervert them by an erroneous estimate; thereby
depriving the acts themselves of their glory, and their Author of his
deserved praise.

Chapter VI. The Guidance And Teaching Of The Scripture Necessary To Lead
To The Knowledge Of God The Creator.

Though the light which presents itself to all eyes, both in heaven and in
earth, is more than sufficient to deprive the ingratitude of men of every
excuse, since God, in order to involve all mankind in the same guilt, sets
before them all, without exception, an exhibition of his majesty,
delineated in the creatures,—yet we need another and better assistance,
properly to direct us to the Creator of the world. Therefore he hath not
unnecessarily added the light of his word, to make himself known unto
salvation, and hath honoured with this privilege those whom he intended to
unite in a more close and familiar connection with himself. For, seeing
the minds of all men to be agitated with unstable dispositions, when he
had chosen the Jews as his peculiar flock, he enclosed them as in a fold,
that they might not wander after the vanities of other nations. And it is
not without cause that he preserves us in the pure knowledge of himself by
the same means; for, otherwise, they who seem comparatively to stand firm,
would soon fall. For, as persons who are old, or whose eyes are by any
means become dim, if you show them the most beautiful book, though they
perceive something written, but can scarcely read two words together, yet,
by the assistance of spectacles, will begin to read distinctly,—so the
Scripture, collecting in our minds the otherwise confused notions of
Deity, dispels the darkness, and gives us a clear view of the true God.
This, then, is a singular favour, that, in the instruction of the Church,
God not only uses mute teachers, but even opens his own sacred mouth; not
only proclaims that some god ought to be worshipped, but at the same time
pronounces himself to be the Being to whom this worship is due; and not
only teaches the elect to raise their view to a Deity, but also exhibits
himself as the object of their contemplation. This method he hath observed
toward his Church from the beginning; beside those common lessons of
instruction, to afford them also his word; which furnishes a more correct
and certain criterion to distinguish him from all fictitious deities. And
it was undoubtedly by this assistance that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the
rest of the patriarchs, attained to that familiar knowledge which
distinguished them from unbelievers. I speak not yet of the peculiar
doctrine of faith which illuminated them into the hope of eternal life.
For, to pass from death to life, they must have known God, not only as the
Creator, but also as the Redeemer; as they certainly obtained both from
his word. For that species of knowledge, which related to him as the
Creator and Governor of the world, in order, preceded the other. To this
was afterwards added the other internal knowledge, which alone vivifies
dead souls, and apprehends God, not only as the Creator of the world, and
as the sole Author and Arbiter of all events, but also as the Redeemer in
the person of the Mediator. But, being not yet come to the fall of man and
the corruption of nature, I also forbear to treat of the remedy. Let the
reader remember, therefore, that I am not yet treating of that covenant by
which God adopted the children of Abraham, and of that point of doctrine
by which believers have always been particularly separated from the
profane nations, since that is founded on Christ; but am only showing how
we ought to learn from the Scripture, that God, who created the world, may
be certainly distinguished from the whole multitude of fictitious deities.
The series of subjects will, in due time, lead us to redemption. But,
though we shall adduce many testimonies from the New Testament, and some
also from the Law and the Prophets, in which Christ is expressly
mentioned, yet they will all tend to prove, that the Scripture discovers
God to us as the Creator of the world, and declares what sentiments we
should form of him, that we may not be seeking after a deity in a
labyrinth of uncertainty.

II. But, whether God revealed himself to the patriarchs by oracles and
visions, or suggested, by means of the ministry of men, what should be
handed down by tradition to their posterity, it is beyond a doubt that
their minds were impressed with a firm assurance of the doctrine, so that
they were persuaded and convinced that the information they had received
came from God. For God always secured to his word an undoubted credit,
superior to all human opinion. At length, that the truth might remain in
the world in a continual course of instruction to all ages, he determined
that the same oracles which he had deposited with the patriarchs should be
committed to public records. With this design the Law was promulgated, to
which the Prophets were afterwards annexed, as its interpreters.—For,
though the uses of the law were many, as will be better seen in the proper
place; and particularly the intention of Moses, and of all the prophets,
was to teach the mode of reconciliation between God and man, (whence also
Paul calls Christ “the end of the law,”)(117)—yet I repeat again, that,
beside the peculiar doctrine of faith and repentance, which proposes
Christ as the Mediator, the Scripture distinguishes the only true God by
certain characters and titles, as the Creator and Governor of the world,
that he may not be confounded with the multitude of false gods. Therefore,
though every man should seriously apply himself to a consideration of the
works of God, being placed in this very splendid theatre to be a spectator
of them, yet he ought principally to attend to the word, that he may
attain superior advantages. And, therefore, it is not surprising, that
they who are born in darkness grow more and more hardened in their
stupidity; since very few attend to the word of God with teachable
dispositions, to restrain themselves within the limits which it
prescribes, but rather exult in their own vanity. This, then, must be
considered as a fixed principle, that, in order to enjoy the light of true
religion, we ought to begin with the doctrine of heaven; and that no man
can have the least knowledge of true and sound doctrine, without having
been a disciple of the Scripture. Hence originates all true wisdom, when
we embrace with reverence the testimony which God hath been pleased
therein to deliver concerning himself. For obedience is the source, not
only of an absolutely perfect and complete faith, but of all right
knowledge of God. And truly in this instance God hath, in his providence,
particularly consulted the true interests of mankind in all ages.

III. For, if we consider the mutability of the human mind,—how easy its
lapse into forgetfulness of God; how great its propensity to errors of
every kind; how violent its rage for the perpetual fabrication of new and
false religions,—it will be easy to perceive the necessity of the heavenly
doctrine being thus committed to writing, that it might not be lost in
oblivion, or evaporate in error, or be corrupted by the presumption of
men. Since it is evident, therefore, that God, foreseeing the inefficacy
of his manifestation of himself in the exquisite structure of the world,
hath afforded the assistance of his word to all those to whom he
determined to make his instructions effectual,—if we seriously aspire to a
sincere contemplation of God, it is necessary for us to pursue this right
way. We must come, I say, to the word, which contains a just and lively
description of God as he appears in his works, when those works are
estimated, not according to our depraved judgment, but by the rule of
eternal truth. If we deviate from it, as I have just observed, though we
run with the utmost celerity, yet, being out of the course, we shall never
reach the goal. For it must be concluded, that the light of the Divine
countenance, which even the Apostle says “no man can approach unto,”(118)
is like an inexplicable labyrinth to us, unless we are directed by the
line of the word; so that it were better to halt in this way, than to run
with the greatest rapidity out of it. Therefore David, inculcating the
necessity of the removal of superstitions out of the world, that pure
religion may flourish, frequently introduces God as “reigning;”(119) by
the word “reigning,” intending, not the power which he possesses, and
which he exercises in the universal government of nature, but the doctrine
in which he asserts his legitimate sovereignty; because errors can never
be eradicated from the human heart, till the true knowledge of God is
implanted in it.

IV. Therefore the same Psalmist, having said, that “the heavens declare
the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy‐work; day unto day
uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge,”(120) afterwards
proceeds to the mention of the word: “The law of the Lord is perfect,
converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the
simple: the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the
commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.” For, though he
also comprehends other uses of the law, yet he suggests, in general, that,
since God’s invitation of all nations to him by the view of heaven and
earth is ineffectual, this is the peculiar school of the children of God.
The same is adverted to in the twenty‐ninth Psalm, where the Psalmist,
having preached the terrors of the Divine voice, which in thunders, in
winds, in showers, in whirlwinds, and in tempests, shakes the earth, makes
the mountains tremble, and breaks the cedars, adds, at length, towards the
close, “in his temple doth every one speak of his glory;” because
unbelievers are deaf to all the voices of God, which resound in the air.
So, in another Psalm, after describing the terrible waves of the sea, he
concludes thus: “Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine
house, O Lord, for ever.”(121) Hence also proceeds the observation of
Christ to the Samaritan woman, that her nation and all others worshipped
they knew not what; and that the Jews were the only worshippers of the
true God.(122) For, since the human mind is unable, through its
imbecility, to attain any knowledge of God without the assistance of his
sacred word, all mankind, except the Jews, as they sought God without the
word, must necessarily have been wandering in vanity and error.

Chapter VII. The Testimony Of The Spirit Necessary To Confirm The
Scripture, In Order To The Complete Establishment Of Its Authority. The
Suspension Of Its Authority On The Judgment Of The Church, An Impious
Fiction.

Before I proceed any further, it is proper to introduce some remarks on
the authority of the Scripture, not only to prepare the mind to regard it
with due reverence, but also to remove every doubt. For, when it is
admitted to be a declaration of the word of God, no man can be so
deplorably presumptuous, unless he be also destitute of common sense and
of the common feelings of men, as to dare to derogate from the credit due
to the speaker. But since we are not favoured with daily oracles from
heaven, and since it is only in the Scriptures that the Lord hath been
pleased to preserve his truth in perpetual remembrance, it obtains the
same complete credit and authority with believers, when they are satisfied
of its divine origin, as if they heard the very words pronounced by God
himself. The subject, indeed, merits a diffuse discussion, and a most
accurate examination. But the reader will pardon me, if I attend rather to
what the design of this work admits, than to what the extensive nature of
the present subject requires. But there has very generally prevailed a
most pernicious error, that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is
conceded to them by the suffrages of the Church; as though the eternal and
inviolable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will of men. For thus,
with great contempt of the Holy Spirit, they inquire, Who can assure us
that God is the author of them? Who can with certainty affirm, that they
have been preserved safe and uncorrupted to the present age? Who can
persuade us that this book ought to be received with reverence, and that
expunged from the sacred number, unless all these things were regulated by
the decisions of the Church? It depends, therefore, (say they,) on the
determination of the Church, to decide both what reverence is due to the
Scripture, and what books are to be comprised in its canon. Thus
sacrilegious men, while they wish to introduce an unlimited tyranny, under
the name of the Church, are totally unconcerned with what absurdities they
embarrass themselves and others, provided they can extort from the
ignorant this one admission, that the Church can do every thing. But, if
this be true, what will be the condition of those wretched consciences,
which are seeking a solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises
extant concerning it rest only on the judgment of men? Will the reception
of such an answer cause their fluctuations to subside, and their terrors
to vanish? Again, how will the impious ridicule our faith, and all men
call it in question, if it be understood to possess only a precarious
authority depending on the favour of men!

II. But such cavillers are completely refuted even by one word of the
Apostle. He testifies that the church is “built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets.”(123) If the doctrine of the prophets and apostles
be the foundation of the Church, it must have been certain, antecedently
to the existence of the Church. Nor is there any foundation for this
cavil, that though the Church derive its origin from the Scriptures, yet
it remains doubtful what writings are to be ascribed to the prophets and
apostles, unless it be determined by the Church. For if the Christian
Church has been from the beginning founded on the writings of the prophets
and the preaching of the apostles, wherever that doctrine is found, the
approbation of it has certainly preceded the formation of the Church;
since without it the Church itself had never existed. It is a very false
notion, therefore, that the power of judging of the Scripture belongs to
the Church, so as to make the certainty of it dependent on the Church’s
will. Wherefore, when the Church receives it, and seals it with her
suffrage, she does not authenticate a thing otherwise dubious or
controvertible; but, knowing it to be the truth of her God, performs a
duty of piety, by treating it with immediate veneration. But, with regard
to the question, How shall we be persuaded of its divine original, unless
we have recourse to the decree of the Church? this is just as if any one
should inquire, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness,
white from black, sweet from bitter? For the Scripture exhibits as clear
evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their colour, or
sweet and bitter things of their taste.

III. I know, indeed, that they commonly cite the opinion of Augustine,
where he says, “that he would not believe the Gospel unless he were
influenced by the authority of the Church.”(124) But how falsely and
unfairly this is cited in support of such a notion, it is easy to discover
from the context. He was in that contending with the Manichees, who wished
to be credited, without any controversy, when they affirmed the truth to
be on their side, but never proved it. Now, as they made the authority of
the Gospel a pretext in order to establish the credit of their Manichæus,
he inquires what they would do if they met with a man who did not believe
the Gospel; with what kind of persuasion they would convert him to their
opinion. He afterwards adds, “Indeed, I would not give credit to the
Gospel,” &c., intending, that he himself, when an alien from the faith,
could not be prevailed on to embrace the Gospel as the certain truth of
God, till he was convinced by the authority of the Church. And is it
surprising that any one, yet destitute of the knowledge of Christ, should
pay a respect to men? Augustine, therefore, does not there maintain that
the faith of the pious is founded on the authority of the Church, nor does
he mean that the certainty of the Gospel depends on it; but simply, that
unbelievers would have no assurance of the truth of the Gospel, that would
win them to Christ, unless they were influenced by the consent of the
Church. And a little before, he clearly confirms it in these words: “When
I shall have commended my own creed, and derided yours, what judgment,
think you, ought we to form, what conduct ought we to pursue, but to
forsake those who invite us to acknowledge things that are certain, and
afterwards command us to believe things that are uncertain; and to follow
those who invite us first to believe what we cannot yet clearly see, that,
being strengthened by faith, we may acquire an understanding of what we
believe; our mind being now internally strengthened and illuminated, not
by men, but by God himself?” These are the express words of Augustine;
whence the inference is obvious to every one, that this holy man did not
design to suspend our faith in the Scriptures on the arbitrary decision of
the Church, but only to show (what we all confess to be true) that they
who are yet unilluminated by the Spirit of God, are, by a reverence for
the Church, brought to such a docility as to submit to learn the faith of
Christ from the Gospel; and that thus the authority of the Church is an
introduction to prepare us for the faith of the Gospel. For we see that he
will have the certainty of the pious to rest on a very different
foundation. Otherwise I do not deny his frequently urging on the Manichees
the universal consent of the Church, with a view to prove the truth of the
Scripture, which they rejected. Whence his rebuke of Faustus, “for not
submitting to the truth of the Gospel, so founded, so established, so
gloriously celebrated, and delivered through certain successions from the
apostolic age.” But he nowhere insinuates that the authority which we
attribute to the Scripture depends on the definitions or decrees of men:
he only produces the universal judgment of the Church, which was very
useful to his argument, and gave him an advantage over his adversaries. If
any one desire a fuller proof of this, let him read his treatise “Of the
Advantage of Believing;” where he will find, that he recommends no other
facility of believing, than such as may afford us an introduction, and be
a proper beginning of inquiry, as he expresses himself; yet that we should
not be satisfied with mere opinion, but rest upon certain and solid truth.

IV. It must be maintained, as I have before asserted, that we are not
established in the belief of the doctrine till we are indubitably
persuaded that God is its Author. The principal proof, therefore, of the
Scriptures is every where derived from the character of the Divine
Speaker. The prophets and apostles boast not of their own genius, or any
of those talents which conciliate the faith of the hearers; nor do they
insist on arguments from reason; but bring forward the sacred name of God,
to compel the submission of the whole world. We must now see how it
appears, not from probable supposition, but from clear demonstration, that
this use of the divine name is neither rash nor fallacious. Now, if we
wish to consult the true interest of our consciences; that they may not be
unstable and wavering, the subjects of perpetual doubt; that they may not
hesitate at the smallest scruples,—this persuasion must be sought from a
higher source than human reasons, or judgments, or conjectures—even from
the secret testimony of the Spirit. It is true that, if we were inclined
to argue the point, many things might be adduced which certainly evince,
if there be any God in heaven, that he is the Author of the Law, and the
Prophecies, and the Gospel. Even though men of learning and deep judgment
rise up in opposition, and exert and display all the powers of their minds
in this dispute, yet, unless they are wholly lost to all sense of shame,
this confession will be extorted from them, that the Scripture exhibits
the plainest evidences that it is God who speaks in it, which manifests
its doctrine to be divine. And we shall soon see, that all the books of
the sacred Scripture very far excel all other writings. If we read it with
pure eyes and sound minds, we shall immediately perceive the majesty of
God, which will subdue our audacious contradictions, and compel us to obey
him. Yet it is acting a preposterous part, to endeavour to produce sound
faith in the Scripture by disputations. Though, indeed, I am far from
excelling in peculiar dexterity or eloquence, yet, if I were to contend
with the most subtle despisers of God, who are ambitious to display their
wit and their skill in weakening the authority of Scripture, I trust I
should be able, without difficulty, to silence their obstreperous clamour.
And, if it were of any use to attempt a refutation of their cavils, I
would easily demolish the boasts which they mutter in secret corners. But
though any one vindicates the sacred word of God from the aspersions of
men, yet this will not fix in their hearts that assurance which is
essential to true piety. Religion appearing, to profane men, to consist
wholly in opinion, in order that they may not believe any thing on foolish
or slight grounds, they wish and expect it to be proved by rational
arguments, that Moses and the prophets spake by divine inspiration. But I
reply, that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to all reason. For, as
God alone is a sufficient witness of himself in his own word, so also the
word will never gain credit in the hearts of men, till it be confirmed by
the internal testimony of the Spirit. It is necessary, therefore, that the
same Spirit, who spake by the mouths of the prophets, should penetrate
into our hearts, to convince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles
which were divinely intrusted to them. And this connection is very
suitably expressed in these words: “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my
word which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor
out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, for
ever.”(125) Some good men are troubled that they are not always prepared
with clear proof to oppose the impious, when they murmur with impunity
against the divine word; as though the Spirit were not therefore
denominated a “seal,” and “an earnest,” for the confirmation of the faith
of the pious; because, till he illuminate their minds, they are
perpetually fluctuating amidst a multitude of doubts.

V. Let it be considered, then, as an undeniable truth, that they who have
been inwardly taught by the Spirit, feel an entire acquiescence in the
Scripture, and that it is self‐authenticated, carrying with it its own
evidence, and ought not to be made the subject of demonstration and
arguments from reason; but it obtains the credit which it deserves with us
by the testimony of the Spirit. For though it conciliate our reverence by
its internal majesty, it never seriously affects us till it is confirmed
by the Spirit in our hearts. Therefore, being illuminated by him, we now
believe the divine original of the Scripture, not from our own judgment or
that of others, but we esteem the certainty, that we have received it from
God’s own mouth by the ministry of men, to be superior to that of any
human judgment, and equal to that of an intuitive perception of God
himself in it. We seek not arguments or probabilities to support our
judgment, but submit our judgments and understandings as to a thing
concerning which it is impossible for us to judge; and that not like some
persons, who are in the habit of hastily embracing what they do not
understand, which displeases them as soon as they examine it, but because
we feel the firmest conviction that we hold an invincible truth; nor like
those unhappy men who surrender their minds captives to superstitions, but
because we perceive in it the undoubted energies of the Divine power, by
which we are attracted and inflamed to an understanding and voluntary
obedience, but with a vigour and efficacy superior to the power of any
human will or knowledge. With the greatest justice, therefore, God
exclaims by Isaiah,(126) that the prophets and all the people were his
witnesses; because, being taught by prophecies, they were certain that God
had spoken without the least fallacy or ambiguity. It is such a
persuasion, therefore, as requires no reasons; such a knowledge as is
supported by the highest reason, in which, indeed, the mind rests with
greater security and constancy than in any reasons; it is, finally, such a
sentiment as cannot be produced but by a revelation from heaven. I speak
of nothing but what every believer experiences in his heart, except that
my language falls far short of a just explication of the subject. I pass
over many things at present, because this subject will present itself for
discussion again in another place. Only let it be known here, that that
alone is true faith which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts. And with
this one reason every reader of modesty and docility will be satisfied:
Isaiah predicts that “all the children” of the renovated Church “shall be
taught of God.”(127) Herein God deigns to confer a singular privilege on
his elect, whom he distinguishes from the rest of mankind. For what is the
beginning of true learning but a prompt alacrity to hear the voice of God?
By the mouth of Moses he demands our attention in these terms: “Say not in
thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? or, Who shall descend into the
deep? The word is even in thy mouth.”(128) If God hath determined that
this treasury of wisdom shall be reserved for his children, it is neither
surprising nor absurd, that we see so much ignorance and stupidity among
the vulgar herd of mankind. By this appellation I designate even those of
the greatest talents and highest rank, till they are incorporated into the
Church. Moreover, Isaiah, observing that the prophetical doctrine would be
incredible, not only to aliens, but also to the Jews, who wished to be
esteemed members of the family, adds, at the same time, the reason—Because
the arm of the Lord will not be revealed to all.(129) Whenever, therefore,
we are disturbed at the paucity of believers, let us, on the other hand,
remember that none, but those to whom it was given, have any apprehension
of the mysteries of God.

Chapter VIII. Rational Proofs To Establish The Belief Of The Scripture.

Without this certainty, better and stronger than any human judgment, in
vain will the authority of the Scripture be either defended by arguments,
or established by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other
supports; since, unless the foundation be laid, it remains in perpetual
suspense. Whilst, on the contrary, when, regarding it in a different point
of view from common things, we have once religiously received it in a
manner worthy of its excellence, we shall then derive great assistance
from things which before were not sufficient to establish the certainty of
it in our minds. For it is admirable to observe how much it conduces to
our confirmation, attentively to study the order and disposition of the
Divine Wisdom dispensed in it, the heavenly nature of its doctrine, which
never savours of any thing terrestrial, the beautiful agreement of all the
parts with each other, and other similar characters adapted to conciliate
respect to any writings. But our hearts are more strongly confirmed, when
we reflect that we are constrained to admire it more by the dignity of the
subjects than by the beauties of the language. For even this did not
happen without the particular providence of God, that the sublime
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven should be communicated, for the most
part, in a humble and contemptible style; lest, if they had been
illustrated with more of the splendour of eloquence, the impious might
cavil that their triumph is only the triumph of eloquence. Now, since that
uncultivated and almost rude simplicity procures itself more reverence
than all the graces of rhetoric, what opinion can we form, but that the
force of truth in the sacred Scripture is too powerful to need the
assistance of verbal art? Justly, therefore, does the apostle argue that
the faith of the Corinthians was founded, “not in the wisdom of men, but
in the power of God,” because his preaching among them was, “not with
enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power.”(130) For the truth is vindicated from every doubt, when,
unassisted by foreign aid, it is sufficient for its own support. But that
this is the peculiar property of the Scripture, appears from the
insufficiency of any human compositions, however artificially polished, to
make an equal impression on our minds. Read Demosthenes or Cicero; read
Plato, Aristotle, or any others of that class; I grant that you will be
attracted, delighted, moved, and enraptured by them in a surprising
manner; but if, after reading them, you turn to the perusal of the sacred
volume, whether you are willing or unwilling, it will affect you so
powerfully, it will so penetrate your heart, and impress itself so
strongly on your mind, that, compared with its energetic influence, the
beauties of rhetoricians and philosophers will almost entirely disappear;
so that it is easy to perceive something divine in the sacred Scriptures,
which far surpasses the highest attainments and ornaments of human
industry.

II. I grant, indeed, that the diction of some of the prophets is neat and
elegant, and even splendid; so that they are not inferior in eloquence to
the heathen writers. And by such examples the Holy Spirit hath been
pleased to show, that he was not deficient in eloquence, though elsewhere
he hath used a rude and homely style. But whether we read David, Isaiah,
and others that resemble them, who have a sweet and pleasant flow of
words, or Amos the herdsman, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, whose rougher
language savours of rusticity,—that majesty of the Spirit, which I have
mentioned, is every where conspicuous. I am not ignorant that Satan in
many things imitates God, in order that, by the fallacious resemblance, he
may more easily insinuate himself into the minds of the simple; and has
therefore craftily disseminated, in unpolished and even barbarous
language, the most impious errors, by which multitudes have been miserably
deceived, and has often used obsolete forms of speech as a mask to conceal
his impostures. But the vanity and fraud of such affectation are visible
to all men of moderate understanding. With respect to the sacred
Scripture, though presumptuous men try to cavil at various passages, yet
it is evidently replete with sentences which are beyond the powers of
human conception. Let all the prophets be examined; not one will be found,
who has not far surpassed the ability of men; so that those to whom their
doctrine is insipid must be accounted utterly destitute of all true taste.

III. This argument has been copiously treated by other writers; wherefore
it may suffice at present merely to hint at a few things which chiefly
relate to the subject in a general view. Beside what I have already
treated on, the antiquity of the Scripture is of no small weight. For,
notwithstanding the fabulous accounts of the Greek writers concerning the
Egyptian theology, yet there remains no monument of any religion, but what
is much lower than the age of Moses. Nor does Moses invent a new deity; he
only makes a declaration of what the Israelites had, through a long series
of years, received by tradition from their forefathers concerning the
eternal God. For what does he aim at, but to recall them to the covenant
made with Abraham? If he had advanced a thing till then unheard of, it
would not have been received; but their liberation from the servitude in
which they were detained must have been a thing well known to them all; so
that the mention of it immediately excited universal attention. It is
probable also that they had been informed of the number of four hundred
years. Now, we must consider, if Moses (who himself preceded all other
writers by such a long distance of time) derives the tradition of his
doctrine from so remote a beginning, how much the sacred Scripture exceeds
in antiquity all other books.

IV. Unless any would choose to credit the Egyptians, who extend their
antiquity to six thousand years before the creation of the world. But
since their garrulity has been ridiculed even by all the profane writers,
I need not trouble myself with refuting it. Josephus, in his book against
Appion, cites from the most ancient writers testimonies worthy of being
remembered; whence we may gather, that the doctrine contained in the law
has, according to the consent of all nations, been renowned from the
remotest ages, although it was neither read nor truly understood. Now,
that the malicious might have no room for suspicion, nor even the wicked
any pretence for cavilling, God hath provided the most excellent remedies
for both these dangers. When Moses relates what Jacob had, almost three
hundred years before, by the spirit of inspiration pronounced concerning
his posterity, how does he disgrace his own tribe! He even brands it, in
the person of Levi, with perpetual infamy. “Simeon,” says he, “and Levi,
instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou
into their secret: unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou
united.”(131) He certainly might have been silent on that disgraceful
circumstance, not only to spare his father, but also to avoid aspersing
himself, as well as all his family, with part of the same ignominy. How
can any suspicion be entertained of him, who, voluntarily publishing, from
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the first of the family from
which he was descended was guilty of detestable conduct, neither consults
his own personal honours, nor refuses to incur the resentment of his
relations, to whom this must undoubtedly have given offence? When he
mentions also the impious murmurings of Aaron, his brother, and Miriam,
his sister,(132) shall we say that he spake according to the dictates of
the flesh, or obeyed the command of the Holy Spirit? Besides, as he
enjoyed the supreme authority, why did he not leave to his own sons, at
least, the office of the high‐priesthood, but place them in the lowest
station? I only hint at a few things out of many. But in the law itself
many arguments will every where occur, which challenge a full belief,
that, without controversy, the legation of Moses was truly divine.

V. Moreover, the miracles which he relates, and which are so numerous and
remarkable, are so many confirmations of the law which he delivered, and
of the doctrine which he published. For that he was carried up into the
mountain in a cloud; that he continued there forty days, deprived of all
human intercourse; that, in the act of proclaiming the law, his face shone
as with the rays of the sun; that lightnings flashed all around; that
thunders and various noises were heard through the whole atmosphere; that
a trumpet sounded, but a trumpet not blown by human breath; that the
entrance of the tabernacle was concealed from the view of the people by an
intervening cloud; that his authority was so miraculously vindicated by
the horrible destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all their
impious faction; that a rock smitten with a rod immediately emitted a
river; that manna rained from heaven at his request;(133)—are not all
these so many testimonies from heaven of his being a true prophet? If any
one object that I assume, as granted, things which are the subjects of
controversy, this cavil is easily answered. For, as Moses published all
these things in an assembly of the people, what room was there for fiction
among those who had been eye‐witnesses of the events? Is it probable that
he would make his appearance in public, and, accusing the people of
infidelity, contumacy, ingratitude, and other crimes, boast that his
doctrine had been confirmed in their sight by miracles which they had
never seen?

VI. For this also is worthy of being remarked, that all his accounts of
miracles are connected with such unpleasant circumstances, as were
calculated to stimulate all the people, if there had been but the smallest
occasion, to a public and positive contradiction; whence it appears, that
they were induced to coincide with him only by the ample conviction of
their own experience. But since the matter was too evident for profane
writers to take the liberty of denying the performance of miracles by
Moses, the father of lies has suggested the calumny of ascribing them to
magical arts. But by what kind of conjecture can they pretend to charge
him with having been a magician, who had so great an abhorrence of that
superstition, as to command, that he who merely consulted magicians and
soothsayers should be stoned?(134) Certainly no impostor practises such
juggling tricks, who does not make it his study, for the sake of acquiring
fame, to astonish the minds of the vulgar. But what is the practice of
Moses? Openly avowing that himself and his brother Aaron are nothing,(135)
but that they only execute the commands of God, he sufficiently clears his
character from every unfavourable aspersion. Now, if the events themselves
be considered, what incantation could cause manna to rain daily from
heaven sufficient to support the people, and, if any one laid up more than
the proper quantity, cause it to putrefy, as a punishment from God for his
unbelief? Add also the many serious examinations which God permitted his
servant to undergo, so that the clamour of the wicked can now be of no
avail. For as often as this holy servant of God was in danger of being
destroyed, at one time by proud and petulant insurrections of all the
people, at another by the secret conspiracies of a few,—how was it
possible for him to elude their inveterate rage by any arts of deception?
And the event evidently proves, that by these circumstances his doctrine
was confirmed to all succeeding ages.

VII. Moreover, who can deny that his assigning, in the person of the
patriarch Jacob, the supreme power to the tribe of Judah, proceeded from a
spirit of prophecy,(136) especially if we consider the eventual
accomplishment of this prediction? Suppose Moses to have been the first
author of it; yet after he committed it to writing, there elapsed four
hundred years in which we have no mention of the sceptre in the tribe of
Judah. After the inauguration of Saul, the regal power seemed to be fixed
in the tribe of Benjamin. When Samuel anointed David, what reason appeared
for transferring it? Who would have expected a king to arise out of the
plebeian family of a herdsman? And of seven brothers, who would have
conjectured that such an honour was destined for the youngest? And by what
means did he attain a hope of the kingdom? Who can assert that this
unction was directed by human art, or industry, or prudence, and was not
rather a completion of the prediction of heaven? And in like manner do not
his predictions, although obscure, concerning the admission of the
Gentiles into the covenant of God, which were accomplished almost two
thousand years after, clearly prove him to have spoken under a divine
inspiration? I omit other predictions, which so strongly savour of a
divine inspiration, that all who have the use of their reason must
perceive that it is God who speaks. In short, one song of his is a clear
mirror in which God evidently appears.(137)

VIII. But in the other prophets this is yet far more conspicuous. I shall
only select a few examples; for to collect all would be too laborious.
When, in the time of Isaiah, the kingdom of Judah was in peace, and even
when they thought themselves safe in the alliance of the Chaldeans, Isaiah
publicly spake of the destruction of the city and the banishment of the
people.(138) Now, even if to predict long before things which then seemed
false, but have since appeared to be true, were not a sufficiently clear
proof of a divine inspiration, to whom but God shall we ascribe the
prophecies which he uttered concerning their deliverance? He mentions the
name of Cyrus, by whom the Chaldeans were to be subdued, and the people
restored to liberty.(139) More than a century elapsed after this prophecy
before the birth of Cyrus; for he was not born till about the hundredth
year after the prophet’s death. No man could then divine, that there would
be one Cyrus, who would engage in a war with the Babylonians, who would
subjugate such a powerful monarchy, and release the people of Israel from
exile. Does not this bare narration, without any ornaments of diction,
plainly demonstrate that Isaiah delivered the undoubted oracles of God,
and not the conjectures of men? Again, when Jeremiah, just before the
people were carried away, limited the duration of their captivity to
seventy years, and predicted their liberation and return, must not his
tongue have been under the direction of the Spirit of God?(140) What
impudence must it be to deny that the authority of the prophets has been
confirmed by such proofs, or that what they themselves assert, in order to
vindicate the credit due to their declarations, has been actually
fulfilled! “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do
I declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them.”(141) I shall not
speak of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who, living in distant countries, but
prophesying at the same time, so exactly accord in their declarations, as
though they had mutually dictated the words to each other. What shall we
say of Daniel? Has not he prophesied of the events of nearly six hundred
years in such a connected series, as if he were composing a history of
transactions already past and universally known? If pious men properly
consider these things, they will be sufficiently prepared to curb the
petulance of the wicked; for the demonstration is too clear to be liable
to any cavils.

IX. I know what is objected by some clamorous men, who would
ostentatiously display the force of their understanding in opposing divine
truth. For they inquire, Who has assured us that Moses and the prophets
actually wrote those books which bear their names? They even dare to
question whether such a man as Moses ever existed. But if any man should
call in question the existence of Plato, or Aristotle, or Cicero, who
would deny that such madness ought to receive corporal punishment? The law
of Moses has been wonderfully preserved, rather by the providence of
heaven than by the endeavours of men. And though, through the negligence
of the priests, it lay for a short time concealed, since it was found by
the pious king Josiah, it has continued in the hands of men through every
succeeding age.(142) Nor, indeed, did Josiah produce it as a thing unknown
or new, but as what had always been public, and the memory of which was
then famous. The protograph had been appointed to be kept in the temple,
and a transcript of it to be deposited in the royal archives;(143) only
the priests had discontinued their ancient custom of publishing the law,
and the people themselves had neglected their wonted reading of it: yet
there scarcely passed an age in which its sanction was not confirmed and
renewed. Were they, who had the writings of David, ignorant of Moses? But,
to speak of all at once, it is certain, that their writings descended to
posterity only from hand to hand, (so to speak,) through a long series of
years transmitted from the fathers, who partly had heard them speak, and
partly learned from others who heard them, while it was fresh in their
memory, that they had thus spoken.

X. With regard to what they object from the history of the Maccabees, to
diminish the credit of the Scripture, nothing could be conceived more
adapted to establish it. But first let us divest it of their artificial
colouring, and then retort upon them the weapon which they direct against
us. When Antiochus, say they, commanded all the books to be burned, whence
proceeded the copies which we now have? I, on the contrary, inquire, where
they could so speedily be fabricated. For it is evident, that, as soon as
the persecution subsided, they immediately appeared, and were, without
controversy, acknowledged as the same by all pious men; who, having been
educated in their doctrine, had been familiarly acquainted with them. Nay,
even when all the impious, as if by a general conspiracy, so wantonly
insulted the Jews, no man ever dared to charge them with forging their
books. For, whatever be their opinion of the Jewish religion, yet they
confess that Moses was the author of it. What, then, do these clamorous
objectors, but betray their own consummate impudence, when they slander,
as supposititious, books whose sacred antiquity is confirmed by the
consent of all histories? But, to waste no more useless labour in refuting
such stale calumnies, let us rather consider how carefully the Lord
preserved his own word, when, beyond all hope, he rescued it from the fury
of the most cruel of tyrants, as from a devouring fire;—that he endued the
pious priests and others with so much constancy, that they hesitated not
to redeem this treasure, if necessary, with their lives, to transmit it to
posterity; and that he frustrated the most diligent inquisition of so many
governors and soldiers. Who is there but must acknowledge it to have been
an eminent and wonderful work of God, that those sacred monuments, which
the impious had flattered themselves were utterly destroyed, were soon
public again, as it were, fully restored to mankind, and, indeed, with far
greater honour? For soon after followed the Greek Translation, which
published them throughout the world. Nor was God’s preserving the tables
of his covenant from the sanguinary edicts of Antiochus, the only instance
of his wonderful operation, but that, amidst such various miseries, with
which the Jewish nation was diminished and laid waste, and at last nearly
exterminated, these records still remained entire. The Hebrew language lay
not only despised, but almost unknown; and surely, had not God consulted
the interest of religion, it had been totally lost. For how much the Jews,
after their return from captivity, departed from the genuine use of their
native language, appears from the prophets of that age; which it is
therefore useful to observe, because this comparison more clearly evinces
the antiquity of the law and the prophets. And by whom hath God preserved
to us the doctrine of salvation contained in the law and the prophets,
that Christ might be manifested in due time? By his most inveterate
enemies, the Jews; whom Augustine therefore justly denominates the
librarians of the Christian Church, because they have furnished us with a
book of which themselves make no use.

XI. If we proceed to the New Testament, by what solid foundations is its
truth supported? Three Evangelists recite their history in a low and mean
style. Many proud men are disgusted with that simplicity, because they
attend not to the principal points of doctrine; whence it were easy to
infer, that they treat of heavenly mysteries which are above human
capacity. They who have a spark of ingenuous modesty will certainly be
ashamed, if they peruse the first chapter of Luke. Now, the discourses of
Christ, a concise summary of which is comprised in these three
Evangelists, easily exempt their writings from contempt. But John,
thundering from his sublimity, more powerfully than any thunderbolt,
levels to the dust the obstinacy of those whom he does not compel to the
obedience of faith. Let all those censorious critics whose supreme
pleasure consists in banishing all reverence for the Scripture out of
their own hearts and the hearts of others, come forth to public view. Let
them read the Gospel of John: whether they wish it or not, they will there
find numerous passages, which, at least, arouse their indolence; and which
will even imprint a horrible brand on their consciences to restrain their
ridicule. Similar is the method of Paul and of Peter, in whose writings,
though the greater part be blind, yet their heavenly majesty attracts
universal attention. But this one circumstance raises their doctrine
sufficiently above the world, that Matthew, who had before been confined
to the profit of his table, and Peter and John, who had been employed in
fishing‐boats,—all plain, unlettered men,—had learned nothing in any human
school which they could communicate to others. And Paul, from not only a
professed, but a cruel and sanguinary enemy, being converted to a new man,
proves, by his sudden and unhoped for change, that he was constrained, by
a command from heaven, to vindicate that doctrine which he had before
opposed. Let these men deny that the Holy Spirit descended on the
Apostles; or, at least, let them dispute the credibility of the history;
yet the fact itself loudly proclaims, that they were taught by the Spirit,
who, though before despised as some of the meanest of the people, suddenly
began to discourse in such a magnificent manner on the mysteries of
heaven.

XII. Besides, there are also other very substantial reasons why the
consent of the Church should have its weight. For it is not an unimportant
consideration, that, since the publication of the Scripture, so many
generations of men should have agreed in voluntarily obeying it; and that
however Satan, together with the whole world, has endeavoured by strange
methods to suppress or destroy it, or utterly to erase and obliterate it
from the memory of man, yet it has always, like a palm‐tree, risen
superior to all opposition, and remained invincible. Indeed, there has
scarcely ever been a sophist or orator of more than common abilities, who
has not tried his strength in opposing it; yet they have all availed
nothing. All the powers of the earth have armed themselves for its
destruction; but their attempts have all evaporated into smoke. How could
it have so firmly resisted attacks on every quarter, if it had been
supported only by human power? Indeed, an additional proof of its Divine
origin arises from this very circumstance, that, notwithstanding all the
strenuous resistance of men, it has, by its own power, risen superior to
every danger. Moreover, not one city, or one nation, only, has conspired
to receive and embrace it; but, as far as the world extends, it has
obtained its authority by the holy consent of various nations, who agreed
in nothing besides. And as such an agreement of minds, so widely distant
in place, and so completely dissimilar in manners and opinions, ought to
have great influence with us, since it is plain that it was effected only
by the power of heaven, so it acquires no small weight from a
consideration of the piety of those who unite in this agreement; not
indeed of all, but of those, who, it hath pleased the Lord, should shine
as luminaries in his Church.

XIII. Now, with what unlimited confidence should we submit to that
doctrine, which we see confirmed and witnessed by the blood of so many
saints! Having once received it, they hesitated not, with intrepid
boldness, and even with great alacrity, to die in its defence: transmitted
to us with such a pledge, how should we not receive it with a firm and
unshaken conviction? Is it therefore no small confirmation of the
Scripture, that it has been sealed with the blood of so many martyrs?
especially when we consider that they died to bear testimony to their
faith, not through intemperate fanaticism, as is sometimes the case with
men of erroneous minds, but through a firm and constant, yet sober zeal
for God. There are other reasons, and those neither few nor weak, by which
the native dignity and authority of the Scripture are not only maintained
in the minds of the pious, but also completely vindicated against the
subtleties of calumniators; but such as alone are not sufficient to
produce firm faith in it, till the heavenly Father, discovering his own
power therein, places its authority beyond all controversy. Wherefore the
Scripture will then only be effectual to produce the saving knowledge of
God, when the certainty of it shall be founded on the internal persuasion
of the Holy Spirit. Thus those human testimonies, which contribute to its
confirmation, will not be useless, if they follow that first and principal
proof, as secondary aids to our imbecility. But those persons betray great
folly, who wish it to be demonstrated to infidels that the Scripture is
the word of God, which cannot be known without faith. Augustine therefore
justly observes,(144) that piety and peace of mind ought to precede, in
order that a man may understand somewhat of such great subjects.

Chapter IX. The Fanaticism Which Discards The Scripture, Under The
Pretence Of Resorting To Immediate Revelations, Subversive Of Every
Principle Of Piety.

Persons who, abandoning the Scripture, imagine to themselves some other
way of approaching to God, must be considered as not so much misled by
error as actuated by frenzy. For there have lately arisen some unsteady
men, who, haughtily pretending to be taught by the Spirit, reject all
reading themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who still attend to
(what they style) the dead and killing letter. But I would ask them, what
spirit that is, by whose inspiration they are elevated to such a
sublimity, as to dare to despise the doctrine of the Scripture, as puerile
and mean. For, if they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, how
ridiculous is such an assurance! for that the apostles of Christ, and
other believers in the primitive Church, were illuminated by no other
Spirit, I think they will concede. But not one of them learned, from his
teaching, to contemn the Divine word; they were rather filled with higher
reverence for it, as their writings abundantly testify. This had been
predicted by the mouth of Isaiah. For where he says, “My Spirit that is
upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, for ever,”(145) he
does not confine people under the old dispensation to the external letter,
as though they were children learning to read, but declares, that it will
be the true and complete felicity of the new Church, under the reign of
Christ, to be governed by the word of God, as well as by his Spirit.
Whence we infer, that these persons are guilty of detestable sacrilege, in
disjoining these two things, which the prophet has connected in an
inviolable union. Again; Paul, after he had been caught up into the third
heaven, did not cease to study the doctrine of the law and the prophets;
as he also exhorted Timothy, a teacher of more than common excellence, to
“give attendance to reading.”(146) And worthy of remembrance is his
eulogium on the Scripture, that it “is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of
God may be perfect.”(147) How diabolical, then, is that madness which
pretends that the use of the Scripture is only transient and temporary,
which guides the sons of God to the highest point of perfection! I would
also ask them another question—whether they have imbibed a different
spirit from that which the Lord promised to his disciples? Great as their
infatuation is, I do not think them fanatical enough to hazard such an
avowal. But what kind of Spirit did he promise? One, truly, who should
“not speak of himself,”(148) but suggest and instil into their minds those
things which he had orally delivered. The office of the Spirit, then,
which is promised to us, is not to feign new and unheard of revelations,
or to coin a new system of doctrine, which would seduce us from the
received doctrine of the Gospel, but to seal to our minds the same
doctrine which the Gospel delivers.

II. Hence we readily understand that it is incumbent on us diligently to
read and attend to the Scripture, if we would receive any advantage or
satisfaction from the Spirit of God; (thus also Peter(149) commends those
who studiously attended to the doctrine of the prophets, which yet might
be supposed to have retired after the light of the Gospel was risen;) but,
on the contrary, that if any spirit, neglecting the wisdom of the word of
God, obtrude on us another doctrine, he ought justly to be suspected of
vanity and falsehood. For, as Satan transforms himself into an angel of
light, what authority will the Spirit have with us, unless we can
distinguish him by the most certain criterion? We find him clearly
designated, indeed, in the word of the Lord; but these unhappy men are
fondly bent on delusion, even to their own destruction, seeking a spirit
rather from themselves than from him. But they plead, that it is unworthy
of the Spirit of God, to whom all things ought to be subject, to be made
subject to the Scripture; as though it were ignominious to the Holy Spirit
to be every where equal and uniform, in all things invariably consistent
with himself. If he were to be conformed to the rules of men, or of
angels, or of any other beings, I grant he might then be considered as
degraded, or even reduced to a state of servitude; but while he is
compared with himself, and considered in himself, who will assert that he
is thereby injured? This is bringing him to the test of examination. I
confess it is. But it is the way which he has chosen for the confirmation
of his majesty among us. We ought to be satisfied, as soon as he
communicates himself to us. But, lest the spirit of Satan should insinuate
himself under his name, he chooses to be recognized by us from his image,
which he hath impressed in the Scriptures. He is the author of the
Scriptures: he cannot be mutable and inconsistent with himself. He must
therefore perpetually remain such as he has there discovered himself to
be. This is not disgraceful to him; unless we esteem it honourable for him
to alter and degenerate from himself.

III. But their cavilling objection, that we depend on “the letter that
killeth,” shows, that they have not escaped the punishment due to the
despisers of the Scripture. For it is sufficiently evident, that Paul is
there contending against the false apostles,(150) who, recommending the
law to the exclusion of Christ, were seducing the people from the
blessings of the New Covenant, in which the Lord engages to engrave his
law in the minds of believers, and to inscribe it on their hearts. The
letter therefore is dead, and the law of the Lord slays the readers of it,
where it is separated from the grace of Christ, and only sounds in the
ears, without affecting the heart. But if it be efficaciously impressed on
our hearts by the Spirit,—if it exhibit Christ,—it is the word of life,
“converting the soul, making wise the simple,” &c.(151) But in the same
place the Apostle also calls his preaching “the ministration of the
Spirit;”(152) doubtless intending, that the Holy Spirit so adheres to his
own truth, which he hath expressed in the Scriptures, that he only
displays and exerts his power where the word is received with due
reverence and honour. Nor is this repugnant to what I before asserted,
that the word itself has not much certainty with us, unless when confirmed
by the testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord hath established a kind of
mutual connection between the certainty of his word and of his Spirit; so
that our minds are filled with a solid reverence for the word, when by the
light of the Spirit we are enabled therein to behold the Divine
countenance; and, on the other hand, without the least fear of mistake, we
gladly receive the Spirit, when we recognize him in his image, that is, in
the word. This is the true state of the case. God did not publish his word
to mankind for the sake of momentary ostentation, with a design to destroy
or annul it immediately on the advent of the Spirit; but he afterwards
sent the same Spirit, by whose agency he had dispensed his word, to
complete his work by an efficacious confirmation of that word. In this
manner Christ opened the understanding of his two disciples;(153) not
that, rejecting the Scriptures, they might be wise enough of themselves,
but that they might understand the Scriptures. So when Paul exhorts the
Thessalonians to “quench not the Spirit,”(154) he does not lead them to
empty speculations independent of the word; for he immediately adds,
“despise not prophesyings;” clearly intimating, that the light of the
Spirit is extinguished when prophecies fall into contempt. What answer can
be given to these things, by those proud fanatics, who think themselves
possessed of the only valuable illumination, when, securely neglecting and
forsaking the Divine word, they, with equal confidence and temerity,
greedily embrace every reverie which their distempered imaginations may
have conceived? A very different sobriety becomes the children of God;
who, while they are sensible that, exclusively of the Spirit of God, they
are utterly destitute of the light of truth, yet are not ignorant that the
word is the instrument, by which the Lord dispenses to believers the
illumination of his Spirit. For they know no other Spirit than that who
dwelt in and spake by the apostles; by whose oracles they are continually
called to the hearing of the word.

Chapter X. All Idolatrous Worship Discountenanced In The Scripture, By Its
Exclusive Opposition Of The True God To All The Fictitious Deities Of The
Heathen.

But, since we have shown that the knowledge of God, which is otherwise
exhibited without obscurity in the structure of the world, and in all the
creatures, is yet more familiarly and clearly unfolded in the word, it
will be useful to examine, whether the representation, which the Lord
gives us of himself in the Scripture, agrees with the portraiture which he
had before been pleased to delineate in his works. This is indeed an
extensive subject, if we intended to dwell on a particular discussion of
it. But I shall content myself with suggesting some hints, by which the
minds of the pious may learn what ought to be their principal objects of
investigation in Scripture concerning God, and may be directed to a
certain end in that inquiry. I do not yet allude to the peculiar covenant
which distinguished the descendants of Abraham from the rest of the
nations. For in receiving, by gratuitous adoption, those who were his
enemies into the number of his children, God even then manifested himself
as a Redeemer; but we are still treating of that knowledge which relates
to the creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator.
But though it will be useful soon to cite some passages from the New
Testament, (since that also demonstrates the power of God in the creation,
and his providence in the conservation of the world,) yet I wish the
reader to be apprized of the point now intended to be discussed, that he
may not pass the limits which the subject prescribes. At present, then,
let it suffice to understand how God, the former of heaven and earth,
governs the world which he hath made. Both his paternal goodness, and the
beneficent inclinations of his will, are every where celebrated; and
examples are given of his severity, which discover him to be the righteous
punisher of iniquities, especially where his forbearance produces no
salutary effects upon the obstinate.

II. In some places, indeed, we are favoured with more explicit
descriptions, which exhibit to our view an exact representation of his
genuine countenance. For Moses, in the description which he gives of it,
certainly appears to have intended a brief comprehension of all that it
was possible for men to know concerning him—“The Lord, the Lord God,
merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and
sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children.”(155)
Where we may observe, first, the assertion of his eternity and self‐
existence, in that magnificent name, which is twice repeated; and
secondly, the celebration of his attributes, giving us a description, not
of what he is in himself, but of what he is to us, that our knowledge of
him may consist rather in a lively perception, than in vain and airy
speculation. Here we find an enumeration of the same perfections which, as
we have remarked, are illustriously displayed both in heaven and on
earth—clemency, goodness, mercy, justice, judgment, and truth. For power
is comprised in the word Elohim, God. The prophets distinguish him by the
same epithets, when they intend a complete exhibition of his holy name.
But, to avoid the necessity of quoting many passages, let us content
ourselves at present with referring to one Psalm;(156) which contains such
an accurate summary of all his perfections, that nothing seems to be
omitted. And yet it contains nothing but what may be known from a
contemplation of the creatures. Thus, by the teaching of experience, we
perceive God to be just what he declares himself in his word. In Jeremiah,
where he announces in what characters he will be known by us, he gives a
description, not so full, but to the same effect—“Let him that glorieth
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord,
which exercise loving‐kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the
earth.”(157) These three things it is certainly of the highest importance
for us to know—mercy, in which alone consists all our salvation; judgment,
which is executed on the wicked every day, and awaits them in a still
heavier degree to eternal destruction; righteousness, by which the
faithful are preserved, and most graciously supported. When you understand
these things, the prophecy declares that you have abundant reason for
glorying in God. Nor is this representation chargeable with an omission of
his truth, or his power, or his holiness, or his goodness. For how could
we have that knowledge, which is here required, of his righteousness,
mercy, and judgment, unless it were supported by his inflexible veracity?
And how could we believe that he governed the world in judgment and
justice, if we were ignorant of his power? And whence proceeds his mercy,
but from his goodness? If all his ways, then, are mercy, judgment, and
righteousness, holiness also must be conspicuously displayed in them.
Moreover, the knowledge of God, which is afforded us in the Scriptures, is
designed for the same end as that which we derive from the creatures: it
invites us first to the fear of God, and then to confidence in him; that
we may learn to honour him with perfect innocence of life, and sincere
obedience to his will, and to place all our dependence on his goodness.

III. But here I intend to comprise a summary of the general doctrine. And,
first, let the reader observe, that the Scripture, in order to direct us
to the true God, expressly excludes and rejects all the gods of the
heathen; because, in almost all ages, religion has been generally
corrupted. It is true, indeed, that the name of one supreme God has been
universally known and celebrated. For those who used to worship a
multitude of deities, whenever they spake according to the genuine sense
of nature, used simply the name of God, in the singular number, as though
they were contented with one God. And this was wisely remarked by Justin
Martyr, who for this purpose wrote a book _On the Monarchy of God_, in
which he demonstrates, from numerous testimonies, that the unity of God
was a principle universally impressed on the hearts of men. Tertullian
also proves the same point from the common phraseology.(158) But since all
men, without exception, have by their own vanity been drawn into erroneous
notions, and so their understandings have become vain, all their natural
perception of the Divine unity has only served to render them inexcusable.
For even the wisest of them evidently betray the vagrant uncertainty of
their minds, when they wish for some god to assist them, and in their vows
call upon unknown and fabulous deities. Besides, in imagining the
existence of many natures in God, though they did not entertain such
absurd notions as the ignorant vulgar concerning Jupiter, Mercury, Venus,
Minerva, and the rest, they were themselves by no means exempt from the
delusions of Satan; and, as we have already remarked, whatever subterfuges
their ingenuity has invented, none of the philosophers can exculpate
themselves from the crime of revolting from God by the corruption of his
truth. For this reason Habakkuk, after condemning all idols, bids us to
seek “the Lord in his holy temple,”(159) that the faithful might
acknowledge no other God than Jehovah, who had revealed himself in his
word.

Chapter XI. Unlawfulness Of Ascribing To God A Visible Form. All Idolatry
A Defection From The True God.

Now, as the Scripture, in consideration of the ignorance and dulness of
the human understanding, generally speaks in the plainest manner,—where it
intends to discriminate between the true God and all false gods, it
principally contrasts him with idols; not that it may sanction the more
ingenious and plausible systems of the philosophers, but that it may
better detect the folly and even madness of the world in researches
concerning God, as long as every one adheres to his own speculations. That
exclusive definition, therefore, which every where occurs, reduces to
nothing whatever notions of the Deity men may form in their own
imaginations; since God alone is a sufficient witness concerning himself.
In the mean time, since the whole world has been seized with such brutal
stupidity, as to be desirous of visible representations of the Deity, and
thus to fabricate gods of wood, stone, gold, silver, and other inanimate
and corruptible materials, we ought to hold this as a certain principle,
that, whenever any image is made as a representation of God, the Divine
glory is corrupted by an impious falsehood. Therefore God, in the law,
after having asserted the glory of Deity to belong exclusively to himself,
when he intends to show what worship he approves or rejects, immediately
adds, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness.”
In these words he forbids us to attempt a representation of him in any
visible figure; and briefly enumerates all the forms by which superstition
had already begun to change his truth into a lie. For the Persians, we
know, worshipped the sun; and the foolish heathen made for themselves as
many gods as they saw stars in the heavens. There was scarcely an animal,
indeed, which the Egyptians did not consider as an image of God. The
Greeks appeared wiser than the rest, because they worshipped the Deity
under the human form.(160) But God compares not idols with each other, as
though one were better or worse than another; but rejects, without a
single exception, all statues, pictures, and other figures, in which
idolaters imagined that he would be near them.

II. This it is easy to infer from the reasons which he annexes to the
prohibition. First, in the writings of Moses: “Take ye therefore good heed
unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude, on the day that the
Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the
voice of the words, but saw no similitude; lest ye corrupt yourselves, and
make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure,” &c.(161) We see
how expressly God opposes his “voice” to every “manner of similitude,” to
show, that whoever desires visible representations of him, is guilty of
departing from him. It will be sufficient to refer to one of the Prophets,
Isaiah,(162) who insists more than all the others on this argument, that
the Divine Majesty is dishonoured by mean and absurd fiction, when he that
is incorporeal is likened to a corporeal form; he that is invisible, to a
visible image; he that is a spirit, to inanimate matter; and he that fills
immensity, to a log of wood, a small stone, or a lump of gold. Paul also
reasons in the same manner: “Forasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of
God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver,
or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”(163) Whence it follows, that
whatever statues are erected, or images painted, to represent God, they
are only displeasing to him, as being so many insults to the Divine
Majesty. And why should we wonder at the Holy Spirit thundering forth such
oracles from heaven, since he compels the blind and wretched idolaters to
make a similar confession on earth? Well known is the complaint of Seneca,
which is cited by Augustine: “They dedicate (says he) the vilest and
meanest materials to represent the sacred, immortal, and inviolable gods;
and give them some a human form, and some a brutal one, and some a double
sex, and different bodies; and they confer the name of gods upon images
which, if animated, would be accounted monsters.” Hence it further appears
that the pretence set up by the advocates for idols, that they were
forbidden to the Jews because they were prone to superstition, is only a
frivolous cavil, to evade the force of the argument. As if truly that were
peculiarly applicable to one nation, which God deduces from his eternal
existence, and the invariable order of nature! Besides, Paul was not
addressing the Jews, but the Athenians, when he refuted the error of
making any similitude of God.

III. Sometimes indeed God hath discovered his presence by certain signs,
so that he was said to be seen “face to face;”(164) but all the signs
which he ever adopted, were well calculated for the instruction of men,
and afforded clear intimations of his incomprehensible essence. For “the
cloud, and the smoke, and the flame,”(165) though they were symbols of
celestial glory, nevertheless operated as a restraint on the minds of all,
to prevent their attempting to penetrate any further. Wherefore even Moses
(to whom he manifested himself more familiarly than to any other) obtained
not by his prayers a sight of the face of God, but received this answer:
“Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see my face and
live.”(166) The Holy Spirit once appeared in the form of a dove;(167) but,
as he presently disappeared again, who does not perceive that by this
momentary symbol the faithful are taught that they should believe the
Spirit to be invisible? that, being content with his power and grace, they
might make no external representation of him. The appearances of God in
the human form were preludes to his future manifestation in Christ.
Therefore the Jews were not permitted to make this a pretext for erecting
a symbol of Deity in the figure of a man. “The mercy seat”(168) also, from
which, under the law, God displayed the presence of his power, was so
constructed, as to suggest that the best contemplation of the Divine Being
is when the mind is transported beyond itself with admiration. For “the
cherubim” covered it with their extended wings; the veil was spread before
it; and the place itself was sufficiently concealed by its secluded
situation. It is manifestly unreasonable therefore to endeavour to defend
images of God and of the saints, by the example of those cherubim. For,
pray, what was signified by those little images but that images are not
calculated to represent the Divine mysteries? since they were formed in
such a manner as, by veiling the mercy seat with their wings, to prevent
not only the eyes, but all the human senses, from prying into God, and so
to restrain all temerity. Moreover, the Prophet describes the seraphim
whom he saw in a vision, as having “their faces covered;”(169) to signify,
that the splendour of the Divine glory is so great, that even the angels
themselves cannot steadfastly behold it; and the faint sparks of it, which
shine in the angels, are concealed from our view. The cherubim, however,
of which we are now speaking, are acknowledged by all persons of sound
judgment to have been peculiar to the old state of tutelage under the
legal dispensation. To adduce them, therefore, as examples for the
imitation of the present age, is quite absurd. For that puerile period, as
I may call it, for which such rudiments were appointed, is now past. And,
indeed, it is a shameful consideration, that heathen writers are more
expert interpreters of the Divine law than the papists. Juvenal reproaches
and ridicules the Jews for worshipping the white clouds and Deity of
heaven. This language, indeed, is perverse and impious; but in denying
that there was any image of God among them, he speaks with more truth than
the papists, who idly pretend that there was some visible figure of him.
But as that nation frequently broke out into idolatry, with great and
sudden impetuosity, resembling the violent ebullition of water from a
large spring, hence let us learn the strong propensity of the human mind
to idolatry, lest, imputing to the Jews a crime common to all, we should
be fascinated by the allurements of sin, and sleep the sleep of death.

IV. To the same purpose is that passage, “The idols of the heathen are
silver and gold, the work of men’s hands;”(170) for the Prophet concludes,
from the very materials, that they are no gods, whose images are made of
gold or of silver; and takes it for granted, that every conception we form
of the Deity, merely from our own understandings, is a foolish
imagination. He mentions gold and silver rather than clay or stone, that
the splendour or the value of the materials may procure no reverence for
the idols. But he concludes in general, that nothing is more improbable,
than that gods should be manufactured from any inanimate matter. At the
same time he insists equally on another point—that it is presumption and
madness in mortal men, who are every moment in danger of losing the
fleeting breath which they draw, to dare to confer upon idols the honour
due to God. Man is constrained to confess that he is a creature of a day,
and yet he will have a piece of metal to be worshipped as a god, of the
deity of which he is the author; for whence did idols originate, but in
the will of men? There is much propriety in that sarcasm of a heathen
poet, who represents one of their idols as saying, “Formerly, I was the
trunk of a wild fig‐tree, a useless log; when the artificer, after
hesitating whether he would make me a stool or a deity, at length
determined that I should be a god.”(171)

A poor mortal, forsooth, who is, as it were, expiring almost every moment,
will, by his workmanship, transfer to a dead stock the name and honour of
God. But as that Epicurean, in his satirical effusions, has paid no
respect to any religion,—leaving this sarcasm, and others of the same
kind, we should be stung and penetrated by the rebuke which the
Prophet(172) has given to the extreme stupidity of those, who, with the
same wood, make a fire to warm themselves, heat an oven for baking bread,
roast or boil their meat, and fabricate a god, before which they prostrate
themselves, to address their humble supplications. In another place,
therefore, he not only pronounces them transgressors of the law, but
reproaches them for not having learned from the foundations of the
earth;(173) since, in reality, there is nothing more unreasonable than the
thought of contracting the infinite and incomprehensible God within the
compass of five feet. And yet this monstrous abomination, which is
manifestly repugnant to the order of nature, experience demonstrates to be
natural to man. It must be further observed, that idols are frequently
stigmatized as being the works of men’s hands, unsanctioned by Divine
authority; in order to establish this principle, that all modes of worship
which are merely of human invention, are detestable. The Psalmist
aggravates this madness, forasmuch as men implore the aid of dead and
insensible things, who are imbued with understanding to know that all
things are directed solely by the power of God. But since the corruption
of nature carries all nations in general, and each individual in
particular, to such an excess of frenzy, the Spirit at length thunders out
this direful imprecation: “Let those that make them be like unto them and
every one that trusteth in them.”(174) Let it be observed, that all
similitudes are equally as much forbidden as graven images; which refutes
the foolish subterfuge of the Greeks; for they think themselves quite
safe, if they make no sculpture of Deity, while in pictures they indulge
greater liberty than any other nations. But the Lord prohibits every
representation of him, whether made by the statuary, or by any other
artificer, because all similitudes are criminal and insulting to the
Divine Majesty.

V. I know that it is a very common observation, that images are the books
of the illiterate. Gregory said so; but very different is the decision of
the Spirit of God, in whose school had Gregory been taught, he would never
have made such an assertion. For, since Jeremiah pronounces that “the
stock is a doctrine of vanities,”(175) since Habakkuk represents “a molten
image” as “a teacher of lies,”(176)—certainly the general doctrine to be
gathered from these passages is, that whatever men learn respecting God
from images is equally frivolous and false. If any one object, that the
Prophets only reprehended those who abuse images to the impious purposes
of superstition,—that indeed I grant; but affirm also, what is evident to
every one, that they utterly condemn what is assumed by the papists as an
indubitable axiom, that images are substitutes for books. For they
contrast images with the true God, as contraries, which can never agree.
This comparison, I say, is laid down in those passages which I have just
cited; that, since there is only one true God, whom the Jews worshipped,
there can be no visible figures made, to serve as representations of the
Divine Being, without falsehood and criminality; and all who seek the
knowledge of God from such figures are under a miserable delusion. Were it
not true, that all knowledge of God, sought from images, is corrupt and
fallacious, it would not be so uniformly condemned by the Prophets. This
at least must be granted to us, that, when we maintain the vanity and
fallaciousness of the attempts of men to make visible representations of
God, we do no other than recite the express declarations of the Prophets.

VI. Read likewise what has been written on this subject by Lactantius and
Eusebius, who hesitate not to assume as a certainty, that all those whose
images are to be seen, were mortal men. Augustine also confidently asserts
the unlawfulness, not only of worshipping images, but even of erecting any
with reference to God. Nor does he advance any thing different from what
had, many years before, been decreed by the Elibertine council, the
thirty‐sixth chapter of which is as follows: “It hath been decreed, that
no pictures be had in the churches, and that what is worshipped or adored
be not painted on the walls.” But most remarkable is what Augustine
elsewhere cites from Varro, and to the truth of which he subscribes—“That
they who first introduced images of the gods, removed fear and added
error.” If this had been a mere assertion of Varro alone, it might have
perhaps but little authority; yet it should justly fill us with shame,
that a heathen, groping as it were in the dark, attained so much light as
to perceive that corporeal representations were unworthy of the Divine
Majesty, being calculated to diminish the fear of God, and to increase
error among mankind. The fact itself demonstrates this to have been spoken
with equal truth and wisdom; but Augustine, having borrowed it from Varro,
advances it as his own opinion. And first he observes that the most
ancient errors concerning God, in which men were involved, did not
originate from images, but were increased by them, as by the superaddition
of new materials. He next explains that the fear of God is thereby
diminished, and even destroyed; since the foolish, ridiculous, and absurd
fabrication of idols would easily bring his Divinity into contempt. Of the
truth of this second remark, I sincerely wish that we had not such proofs
in our own experience. Whoever, therefore, desires to be rightly
instructed, he must learn from some other quarter than from images, what
is to be known concerning God.

VII. If the papists have any shame, let them no longer use this
subterfuge, that images are the books of the illiterate; which is so
clearly refuted by numerous testimonies from Scripture. Yet, though I
should concede this point to them, it would avail them but little in
defence of their idols. What monsters they obtrude in the place of Deity
is well known. But what they call the pictures or statues of their
saints—what are they but examples of the most abandoned luxury and
obscenity? which if any one were desirous of imitating, he would deserve
corporal punishment. Even prostitutes in brothels are to be seen in more
chaste and modest attire, than those images in their temples, which they
wish to be accounted images of virgins. Nor do they clothe the martyrs in
habits at all more becoming. Let them adorn their idols, then, with some
small degree of modesty, that the pretence of their being books of some
holiness, if not less false, may be less impudent. But even then, we will
reply, that this is not the method to be adopted in sacred places for the
instruction of the faithful, whom God will have taught a very different
doctrine from any that can be learned from such insignificant trifles. He
hath commanded one common doctrine to be there proposed to all, in the
preaching of his word, and in his sacred mysteries; to which they betray
great inattention of mind, who are carried about by their eyes to the
contemplation of idols. Whom, then, do the papists call illiterate, whose
ignorance will suffer them to be taught only by images? Those, truly, whom
the Lord acknowledges as his disciples; whom he honours with the
revelation of his heavenly philosophy; whom he will have instructed in the
healthful mysteries of his kingdom. I confess, indeed, as things are now
circumstanced, that there are at present not a few who cannot bear to be
deprived of such books. But whence arises this stupidity, but from being
defrauded of that teaching which alone is adapted to their instruction? In
fact, those who presided over the churches, resigned to idols the office
of teaching, for no other reason but because they were themselves dumb.
Paul testifies, that in the true preaching of this gospel, Christ is
“evidently set forth,” and, as it were, “crucified before our eyes.”(177)
To what purpose, then, was the erection of so many crosses of wood and
stone, silver and gold, every where in the temples, if it had been fully
and faithfully inculcated, that Christ died that he might bear our curse
on the cross, expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, cleanse us by
his blood, and, in a word, reconcile us to God the Father? From this
simple declaration they might learn more than from a thousand crosses of
wood or stone; for perhaps the avaricious fix their minds and their eyes
more tenaciously on the gold and silver crosses, than on any part of the
Divine word.

VIII. Respecting the origin of idols, the generally received opinion
agrees with what is asserted in the book of Wisdom;(178) namely, that the
first authors of them were persons who paid this honour to the dead, from
a superstitious reverence for their memory. I grant that this perverse
custom was very ancient, and deny not that it greatly contributed to
increase the rage of mankind after idolatry; nevertheless, I cannot
concede that it was the first cause of that evil. For it appears from
Moses, that idols were in use long before the introduction of that
ostentatious consecration of the images of the dead, which is frequently
mentioned by profane writers. When he relates that Rachel stole her
father’s idols,(179) he speaks as of a common corruption. Whence we may
infer, that the mind of man is, if I may be allowed the expression, a
perpetual manufactory of idols. After the deluge, there was, as it were, a
regeneration of the world; but not many years elapsed before men
fabricated gods according to their own fancy. And it is probable, that
while the holy patriarch was yet alive, his posterity were addicted to
idolatry, so that, with the bitterest grief, he might, with his own eyes,
behold the earth which God had lately purged from its corruptions by such
a dreadful judgment, again polluted with idols. For Terah and Nachor,
before the birth of Abraham, were worshippers of false gods, as is
asserted by Joshua.(180) Since the posterity of Shem so speedily
degenerated, what opinion must we entertain of the descendants of Ham, who
had already been cursed in their father? The true state of the case is,
that the mind of man, being full of pride and temerity, dares to conceive
of God according to its own standard; and, being sunk in stupidity, and
immersed in profound ignorance; imagines a vain and ridiculous phantom
instead of God. These evils are followed by another; men attempt to
express in the work of their hands such a deity as they have imagined in
their minds. The mind then begets the idol, and the hand brings it forth.
The example of the Israelites proves this to have been the origin of
idolatry, namely, that men believe not God to be among them, unless he
exhibit some external signs of his presence. “As for this Moses,” they
said, “we wot not what is become of him; make us gods which shall go
before us.”(181) They knew, indeed, that there was a God, whose power they
had experienced in so many miracles; but they had no confidence in his
being present with them, unless they could see some corporeal symbol of
his countenance, as a testimony of their Divine Guide. They wished,
therefore, to understand, from the image going before them, that God was
the leader of their march. Daily experience teaches, that the flesh is
never satisfied, till it has obtained some image, resembling itself, in
which it may be foolishly gratified, as an image of God. In almost all
ages, from the creation of the world, in obedience to this stupid
propensity, men have erected visible representations, in which they
believed God to be presented to their carnal eyes.

IX. Such an invention is immediately attended with adoration; for when men
supposed that they saw God in images, they also worshipped him in them. At
length, both their eyes and their minds being wholly confined to them,
they began to grow more stupid, and to admire them, as though they
possessed some inherent divinity. Now, it is plain that men did not rush
into the worship of images, till they had imbibed some very gross opinion
respecting them; not, indeed, that they believed them to be gods, but they
imagined that something of Divinity resided in them. When you prostrate
yourself, therefore, in adoration of an image, whether you suppose it to
represent God or a creature, you are already fascinated with superstition.
For this reason the Lord hath prohibited, not only the erection of statues
made as representations of him, but also the consecration of any
inscriptions or monuments to stand as objects of worship. For the same
reason, also, another point is annexed to the precept in the law
concerning adoration. For as soon as men have made a visible figure of
God, they attach Divine power to it. Such is the stupidity of men, that
they confine God to any image which they make to represent him, and
therefore cannot but worship it. Nor is it of any importance, whether they
worship simply the idol, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry, when
Divine honours are paid to an idol, under any pretence whatsoever. And as
God will not be worshipped in a superstitious or idolatrous manner,
whatever is conferred on idols is taken from him. Let this be considered
by those who seek such miserable pretexts for the defence of that
execrable idolatry, with which, for many ages, true religion has been
overwhelmed and subverted. The images, they say, are not considered as
gods. Neither were the Jews so thoughtless as not to remember, that it was
God by whose hand they had been conducted out of Egypt, before they made
the calf. But when Aaron said that those were the gods by whom they had
been liberated from Egypt, they boldly assented;(182) signifying,
doubtless, that they would keep in remembrance, that God himself was their
deliverer, while they could see him going before them in the calf. Nor can
we believe the heathen to have been so stupid, as to conceive that God was
no other than wood and stone. For they changed the images at pleasure, but
always retained in their minds the same gods; and there were many images
for one god; nor did they imagine to themselves gods in proportion to the
multitude of images: besides, they daily consecrated new images, but
without supposing that they made new gods. Read the excuses, which,
Augustine says,(183) were alleged by the idolaters of the age in which he
lived. When they were charged with idolatry, the vulgar replied, that they
worshipped, not the visible figure, but the Divinity that invisibly dwelt
in it. But they, whose religion was, as he expresses himself, more
refined, said, that they worshipped neither the image, nor the spirit
represented by it; but that in the corporeal figure they beheld a sign of
that which they ought to worship. What is to be inferred from this, but
that all idolaters, whether Jewish or Gentile, have been guided by the
notion which I have mentioned? Not content with a spiritual knowledge of
God, they thought that they should receive more clear and familiar
impressions of him by means of images. After they had once pleased
themselves with such a preposterous representation of God, they ceased not
from being deluded with new fallacies, till they imagined that God
displayed his power in images. Nevertheless, the Jews were persuaded that,
under such images, they worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of
heaven and earth; and the heathen, that they worshipped their false gods,
whom they pretended to be inhabitants of heaven.

X. Those who deny that this has been done in time past, and even within
our own remembrance, assert an impudent falsehood. For why do they
prostrate themselves before images? And when about to pray, why do they
turn themselves towards them, as towards the ears of God? For it is true,
as Augustine says,(184) “That no man prays or worships thus, looking on an
image, who is not impressed with an opinion that he shall be heard by it,
and a hope that it will do for him as he desires.” Why is there so great a
difference between images of the same god, that one is passed by with
little or no respect, and another is honoured in the most solemn manner?
Why do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages, in going to see
images resembling those which they have at home? Why do they at this day
fight, even to slaughter and destruction, in defence of them, as of their
country and religion, so that they could part with the only true God more
easily than with their idols? Yet I am not here enumerating the gross
errors of the vulgar, which are almost infinite, and occupy nearly the
hearts of all; I only relate what they themselves allege, when they are
most anxious to exculpate themselves from idolatry. “We never,” say they,
“call them our gods.” Nor did the Jews or heathen in ancient times call
them their gods; and yet the Prophets, in all their writings, were
constantly accusing them of fornication with wood and stone, only on
account of such things as are daily practised by those who wish to be
thought Christians; that is, for worshipping God, by corporeal adoration
before figures of wood or stone.

XI. I am neither ignorant, nor desirous of concealing, that they evade the
charge by a more subtle distinction, which will soon be noticed more at
large. They pretend that the reverence which they pay to images is
ειδωλοδουλεια, (service of images,) but deny that it is ειδωλολατρεια
(worship of images.) For in this manner they express themselves, when they
maintain, that the reverence which they call _dulia_, may be given to
statues or pictures, without injury to God. They consider themselves,
therefore, liable to no blame, while they are only the servants of their
idols, and not worshippers of them; as though worship were not rather
inferior to service. And yet, while they seek to shelter themselves under
a Greek term, they contradict themselves in the most childish manner. For
since the Greek word λατρευειν signifies nothing else but to worship, what
they say is equivalent to a confession that they adore their images, but
without adoration. Nor can they justly object, that I am trying to insnare
them with words: they betray their own ignorance in their endeavours to
raise a mist before the eyes of the simple. But, however eloquent they may
be, they will never be able, by their rhetoric, to prove one and the same
thing to be two different things. Let them point out, I say, a difference
in fact, that they may be accounted different from ancient idolaters. For
as an adulterer, or homicide, will not escape the imputation of guilt, by
giving his crime a new and arbitrary name, so it is absurd that these
persons should be exculpated by the subtle invention of a name, if they
really differ in no respect from those idolaters whom they themselves are
constrained to condemn. But their case is so far from being different from
that of former idolaters, that the source of all the evil is a
preposterous emulation, with which they have rivalled them by exercising
their minds in contriving, and their hands in forming, visible symbols of
the Deity.

XII. Nevertheless, I am not so scrupulous as to think that no images ought
ever to be permitted. But since sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I
wish for a pure and legitimate use of both; lest those things, which the
Lord hath conferred on us for his glory and our benefit, be not only
corrupted by preposterous abuse, but even perverted to our ruin. We think
it unlawful to make any visible figure as a representation of God, because
he hath himself forbidden it, and it cannot be done without detracting, in
some measure, from his glory. Let it not be supposed that we are singular
in this opinion; for that all sound writers have uniformly reprobated the
practice, must be evident to persons conversant with their works. If,
then, it be not lawful to make any corporeal representation of God, much
less will it be lawful to worship it for God, or to worship God in it. We
conclude, therefore, that nothing should be painted and engraved but
objects visible to our eyes: the Divine Majesty, which is far above the
reach of human sight, ought not to be corrupted by unseemly figures. The
subjects of those arts consist partly of histories and transactions,
partly of images and corporeal forms, without reference to any
transactions. The former are of some use in information or recollection;
the latter, as far as I see, can furnish nothing but amusement. And yet it
is evident, that almost all the images, which have hitherto been set up in
the churches, have been of this latter description. Hence it may be seen,
that they were placed there, not with judgment and discrimination, but
from a foolish and inconsiderate passion for them. I say nothing here of
the impropriety and indecency conspicuous in most of them, and the wanton
licentiousness displayed in them by the painters and statuaries, at which
I have before hinted: I only assert, that even if they were intrinsically
faultless, still they would be altogether unavailing for the purposes of
instruction.

XIII. But, passing over that difference also, let us consider, as we
proceed, whether it be expedient to have any images at all in Christian
temples, either descriptive of historical events, or representative of
human forms. In the first place, if the authority of the ancient Church
have any influence with us, let us remember, that for about five hundred
years, while religion continued in a more prosperous state, and purer
doctrine prevailed, the Christian churches were generally without images.
They were then first introduced, therefore, to ornament the churches, when
the purity of the ministry had begun to degenerate. I will not dispute
what was the reason which influenced the first authors of them; but if you
compare one age with another, you will see that they were much declined
from the integrity of those who had no images. Who can suppose, that those
holy fathers would have permitted the Church to remain so long destitute
of what they judged useful and salutary for it? The fact was, that,
instead of omitting them through ignorance or negligence, they perceived
them to be of little or no use, but, on the contrary, pregnant with much
danger; and, therefore, intentionally and wisely rejected them. This is
asserted in express terms by Augustine: “When they are fixed,” says he,
“in those places in an honourable elevation, to attract the attention of
those who are praying and sacrificing, though they are destitute of sense
and life, yet, by the very similitude of living members and senses, they
affect weak minds, so that they appear to them to live and breathe,”
&c.(185) And in another place: “For that representation of members leads,
and, as it were, constrains, the mind, which animates a body, to suppose
that body to be endued with perception, which it sees to be very similar
to its own,” &c. And a little after: “Idols have more influence to bow
down an unhappy soul, because they have a mouth, eyes, ears, and feet,
than to correct it, because they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor
walk.” This indeed appears to be the reason of John’s exhortation to “keep
ourselves,” not only from the worship of idols, but “from idols”
themselves. And we have found it too true, that, through the horrible
frenzy, which, almost to the total destruction of piety, hath heretofore
possessed the world, as soon as images are set up in churches, there is,
as it were, a standard of idolatry erected; for the folly of mankind
cannot refrain from immediately falling into idolatrous worship. But, even
if the danger were less, yet, when I consider the use for which temples
were designed, it appears to me extremely unworthy of their sanctity, to
receive any other images, than those natural and expressive ones, which
the Lord hath consecrated in his word; I mean Baptism, and the Supper of
the Lord, and the other ceremonies, with which our eyes ought to be more
attentively engaged, and more sensibly affected, than to require any
others formed by human ingenuity. Behold the incomparable advantages of
images! the loss of which, if you believe the papists, nothing can
compensate.

XIV. The remarks already made on this subject, I think, would be
sufficient, if it were not necessary to take some notice of the Council of
Nice; not that very celebrated one, which was convened by Constantine the
Great, but that which was held about eight hundred years ago, by the
command, and under the auspices, of the Empress Irene. For that Council
decreed, not only that images should be had in churches, but also that
they should be worshipped. And, notwithstanding what I have advanced, the
authority of the Council would raise a strong prejudice on the contrary
side. Though, to confess the truth, I am not much concerned at this, as I
am to show the reader their extreme madness, whose fondness for images
exceeded any thing that was becoming in Christians. But let us despatch
this point first: the present advocates for the use of images, allege the
authority of that Nicene Council in their defence. There is a book extant,
written in refutation of this practice, under the name of Charlemagne;
which, from the diction, we may conclude was composed at the same time. In
this work are recited the opinions of the bishops who attended the
Council, and the arguments they used in the controversy. John, the
delegate of the Eastern churches, said, “God created man in his own
image;” and hence he inferred that we ought to have images. The same
prelate thought that images were recommended to us by this sentence: “Show
me thy face, for it is glorious.” Another, to prove that they ought to be
placed on the altars, cited this testimony: “No man lighteth a candle, and
putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the contemplation of these to
be useful to us, adduced a verse from a Psalm: “The light of thy
countenance, O Lord, is sealed upon us.” Another pressed this comparison
into his service: “As the patriarchs used the sacrifices of the heathen,
so Christians ought to have the images of saints, instead of the idols of
the heathen.” In the same manner they tortured that expression, “Lord, I
have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious of all was
their interpretation of this passage: “As we have heard, so have we seen;”
that therefore God is known, not only by the hearing of his word, but by
the contemplation of images. Similar is the subtlety of Bishop Theodore:
“God is glorious in his saints.” And in another place it is said, “In the
saints that are in the earth:” therefore this ought to be referred to
images. But their impertinencies and absurdities are so disgusting, that I
am quite ashamed to repeat them.

XV. When they dispute concerning adoration, they bring forward Jacob’s
worshipping of Pharaoh, and of the staff of Joseph, and of the inscription
erected by himself; although, in this last instance, they not only corrupt
the sense of the Scripture, but allege what is nowhere to be found. These
passages also, “Worship his footstool;” “Worship in his holy hill;” and,
“All the rich of the people shall supplicate thy face;” they consider as
apposite and conclusive proofs. If any one wished to represent the
advocates for images in a ridiculous point of view, could he possibly
ascribe to them greater and grosser instances of folly? But, that no doubt
of this might remain, Theodosius, bishop of Mira, defends the propriety of
worshipping images from the dreams of his archdeacon, as seriously as if
he had an immediate revelation from heaven. Now, let the advocates of
images go and urge upon us the decree of that Council; as though those
venerable fathers had not entirely destroyed all their credit by such
puerile treatment of the sacred Scriptures, or such impious and shameful
mutilation of them.

XVI. I come now to those prodigies of impiety, which it is wonderful that
they ever ventured to broach; and more wonderful still, that they have not
been opposed with universal detestation. It is right to expose this
flagitious madness, that the worship of images may at least be deprived of
the pretence of antiquity, which the papists falsely urge in its favour.
Theodosius, bishop of Amorum, denounces an anathema against all who are
averse to the worship of images. Another imputes all the calamities of
Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. What
punishments, then, did the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs deserve, in
whose time images were unknown? They add further, If the image of the
emperor be met by processions with perfumes and incense, much more is this
honour due to the images of the saints. Constantius, bishop of Constance,
in Cyprus, professes his reverence for images, and avows that he will pay
them the same worship and honour as is due to the Trinity, the source of
all life; and whoever refuses to do the same, he anathematizes and
dismisses with the Manichees and Marcionites. And, lest you should suppose
this to be the private opinion of an individual, they all declare their
assent to it. John, the delegate of the Eastern churches, carried by the
fervour of his zeal to still greater lengths, asserts it to be better to
admit all the brothels of the world into one city, than to reject the
worship of images. At length it was unanimously decreed, that the
Samaritans were worse than all heretics, and that the adversaries of
images were worse than the Samaritans. But, that the farce might not want
its usual plaudit, they add this clause: “Let them rejoice and exult, who
have the image of Christ, and offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the
distinction of _latria_ and _dulia_, with which they attempt to deceive
both God and men? For the Council gives the same honour, without any
exception, to images and to the living God.

Chapter XII. God Contradistinguished From Idols, That He May Be Solely And
Supremely Worshipped.

We said, at the beginning, that the knowledge of God consists not in
frigid speculation, but is accompanied by the worship of him. We also
cursorily touched on the right method of worshipping him, which will be
more fully explained in other places. I now only repeat, in few words,
that whenever the Scripture asserts that there is but one God, it contends
not for the bare name, but also teaches, that whatever belongs to the
Deity, should not be transferred to another. This shows how pure religion
differs from idolatry. The Greek word ευσεβεια certainly signifies right
worship, since even blind mortals, groping in the dark, have always
perceived the necessity of some certain rule, that the worship of God may
not be involved in disorder and confusion. Although Cicero ingeniously and
correctly derives the word _religion_ from a verb signifying “to read over
again,” or “to gather again;” yet the reason he assigns for it, that good
worshippers often recollect, and diligently reconsider what is true, is
forced and far‐fetched. I rather think the word is opposed to a liberty of
wandering without restraint; because the greater part of the world rashly
embrace whatever they meet with, and also ramble from one thing to
another; but piety, in order to walk with a steady step, collects itself
within its proper limits. The word _superstition_ also appears to me to
import a discontent with the method and order prescribed, and an
accumulation of a superfluous mass of vain things. But to leave the
consideration of words, it has been generally admitted, in all ages, that
religion is corrupted and perverted by errors and falsehoods; whence we
infer, that when we allow ourselves any thing from inconsiderate zeal, the
pretext alleged by the superstitious is altogether frivolous. Although
this confession is in the mouths of all, they betray, at the same time, a
shameful ignorance, neither adhering to the one true God, nor observing
any discrimination in his worship, as we have before shown. But God, to
assert his own right, proclaims that he is “jealous,” and will be a severe
avenger, if men confound him with any fictitious deity; and then, to
retain mankind in obedience, he defines his legitimate worship. He
comprises both in his law, where he first binds the faithful to himself,
as their sole legislator; and then prescribes a rule for the right worship
of him according to his will. Now, of the law, since the uses and ends of
it are various, I shall treat in its proper place: at present, I only
remark, that it sets up a barrier to prevent men turning aside to corrupt
modes of worship. Let us remember, what I have already stated, that,
unless every thing belonging to Divinity remain in God alone, he is
spoiled of his honour, and his worship is violated. And here it is
necessary to animadvert more particularly on the subtle fallacies of
superstition. For it revolts not to strange gods, in such a manner as to
appear to desert the supreme God, or to degrade him to a level with
others; but, allowing him the highest place, it surrounds him with a
multitude of inferior deities, among whom it distributes his honours; and
thus, in a cunning and hypocritical manner, the glory of Divinity is
divided among many, instead of remaining wholly in one. Thus the ancient
idolaters, Jews as well as Gentiles, imagined one God, the Father and
Governor of all, and subordinate to him a vast multitude of other deities;
to whom, in common with the supreme God, they attributed the government of
heaven and earth. Thus the saints, who departed out of this life some ages
ago, are exalted to the society of God, to be worshipped, and invoked, and
celebrated like him. We suppose, indeed, the glory of God not to be
sullied with this abomination; whereas it is, in a great measure,
suppressed and extinguished, except that we retain some faint notion of
his supreme power; but, at the same time, deceived with such impostures,
we are seduced to the worship of various deities.

II. On this account was invented the distinction of _latria_ and _dulia_,
as they express themselves, by which they conceived they might safely
ascribe divine honours to angels and deceased men. For it is evident, that
the worship which papists pay to the saints, differs not in reality from
the worship of God; for they adore God and them promiscuously; but when
they are accused of it, they evade the charge with this subterfuge, that
they preserve inviolate to God what belongs to him, because they leave him
λατρεια. But since the question relates to a thing, not to a word, who can
bear their careless trifling on the most important of all subjects? But,
to pass this also, they will gain nothing at last by their distinction,
but that they render worship to God alone, and service to the saints. For
λατρεια, in Greek, signifies the same as _cultus_ in Latin, [and _worship_
in English;] but δουλεια properly signifies _servitus_, [_service_;] and
yet, in the Scriptures, this distinction is sometimes disregarded. But,
suppose it to be a constant distinction, it remains to be inquired, what
is the meaning of each term. Λατρεια is _worship_; δουλεια is _service_.
Now, no one doubts, that to serve is more than to worship or honour. For
it would be irksome to serve many persons, whom you would not refuse to
honour. So unjust is the distribution, to assign the greater to the
saints, and leave to God that which is less. But many of the ancients, it
is urged, have used this distinction. What is that to the purpose, if
every one perceives it to be not only improper, but altogether frivolous?

III. Leaving these subtleties, let us consider the subject itself. Paul,
when he reminds the Galatians what they had been before they were
illuminated in the knowledge of God, says, that they “did service to them
which by nature were no gods.”(186) Though he mentions not λατρεια,
(worship,) is their idolatry therefore excusable? He certainly condemns
that perverse superstition, which he denominates δουλεια, (service,)
equally as much as if he had used the word λατρεια, (worship.) And when
Christ repels the assault of Satan with this shield, “It is written, Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God,”(187) the word λατρεια came not into the
question; for Satan required nothing but προσκυνησις, (prostration, or
adoration.) So, when John is reprehended by an angel, for having fallen on
his knees before him,(188) we must not understand that John was so stupid
as to intend to transfer to an angel the honour due exclusively to God.
But since all worship, that is connected with religion, cannot but savour
of Divine, he could not (προσκυνειν) prostrate himself before the angel,
without detracting from the glory of God. We read, indeed, frequently, of
men having been worshipped; but that was civil honour, so to speak;
religion has a different design; and no sooner is religion connected with
worship, or homage, than it produces a profanation of the Divine honour.
We may see the same in Cornelius, who had not made such a small progress
in piety, as not to ascribe supreme worship to God alone. When he “fell
down” before Peter, therefore, it certainly was not with an intention of
worshipping him instead of God:(189) yet Peter positively forbade him to
do it. And why was this, but because men never so particularly distinguish
between the worship or homage of God, and that of the creatures, as to
avoid transferring to a creature what belongs exclusively to God?
Wherefore, if we desire to have but one God, let us remember, that his
glory ought not, in the least, to be diminished; but that he must retain
all that belongs to him. Therefore Zechariah, when speaking of the
restoration of the Church, expressly declares, not only that “there shall
be one Lord,” but also “that his name shall be one;”(190) signifying,
without doubt, that he will have nothing in common with idols. Now, what
kind of worship God requires, will be seen, in due course, in another
place. For he hath been pleased, in his law, to prescribe to mankind what
is lawful and right; and so to confine them to a certain rule, that every
individual might not take the liberty of inventing a mode of worship
according to his own fancy. But, since it is not proper to burden the
reader, by confounding many subjects together, I shall not enter on that
point yet; let it suffice to know, that no religious services can be
transferred to any other than God alone, without committing sacrilege. At
first, indeed, superstition ascribed Divine honours either to the sun, or
to the other stars, or to idols. Afterwards followed ambition, which,
adorning men with the spoils of God, dared to profane every thing that was
sacred. And although there remained a persuasion, that they ought to
worship a supreme God, yet it became customary to offer sacrifices
promiscuously to genii, and inferior deities, and deceased heroes. So
steep is the descent to this vice, to communicate to a vast multitude that
which God particularly challenges to himself alone!

Chapter XIII. One Divine Essence, Containing Three Persons; Taught In The
Scriptures From The Beginning.

What is taught in the Scriptures concerning the immensity and spirituality
of the essence of God, should serve not only to overthrow the foolish
notions of the vulgar, but also to refute the subtleties of profane
philosophy. One of the ancients,(191) in his own conception very shrewdly,
said, that whatever we see, and whatever we do not see, is God. But he
imagined that the Deity was diffused through every part of the world. But,
although God, to keep us within the bounds of sobriety, speaks but rarely
of his essence, yet, by those two attributes, which I have mentioned, he
supersedes all gross imaginations, and represses the presumption of the
human mind. For, surely, his immensity ought to inspire us with awe, that
we may not attempt to measure him with our senses; and the spirituality of
his nature prohibits us from entertaining any earthly or carnal
speculations concerning him. For the same reason, he represents his
residence to be “in heaven;” for though, as he is incomprehensible, he
fills the earth also; yet, seeing that our minds, from their dulness, are
continually dwelling on the earth, in order to shake off our sloth and
inactivity, he properly raises us above the world. And here is demolished
the error of the Manichees, who, by maintaining the existence of two
original principles, made the devil, as it were, equal to God. This
certainly was both dividing the unity of God, and limiting his immensity.
For their daring to abuse certain testimonies of Scripture betrayed a
shameful ignorance; as the error itself evidenced an execrable madness.
The Anthropomorphites also, who imagined God to be corporeal, because the
Scripture frequently ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet,
are easily refuted. For who, even of the meanest capacity, understands
not, that God lisps, as it were, with us, just as nurses are accustomed to
speak to infants? Wherefore, such forms of expression do not clearly
explain the nature of God, but accommodate the knowledge of him to our
narrow capacity; to accomplish which, the Scripture must necessarily
descend far below the height of his majesty.

II. But he also designates himself by another peculiar character, by which
he may be yet more clearly distinguished; for, while he declares himself
to be but One, he proposes himself to be distinctly considered in Three
Persons, without apprehending which, we have only a bare and empty name of
God floating in our brains, without any idea of the true God. Now, that no
one may vainly dream of three gods, or suppose that the simple essence of
God is divided among the three Persons, we must seek for a short and easy
definition, which will preserve us from all error. But since some
violently object to the word Person, as of human invention, we must first
examine the reasonableness of this objection. When the Apostle denominates
the Son the express image of the hypostasis of the Father, he undoubtedly
ascribes to the Father some subsistence, in which he differs from the Son.
For to understand this word as synonymous with Essence, (as some
interpreters have done, as though Christ, like wax impressed with a seal,
represented in himself the substance of the Father,) were not only harsh,
but also absurd. For the essence of God being simple and indivisible, he
who contains all in himself, not in part, or by derivation, but in
complete perfection, could not, without impropriety, and even absurdity,
be called the express image of it. But since the Father, although
distinguished by his own peculiar property, hath expressed himself
entirely in his Son, it is with the greatest reason asserted that he hath
made his hypostasis conspicuous in him; with which the other appellation,
given him in the same passage, of “the brightness of his glory,” exactly
corresponds. From the words of the Apostle, we certainly conclude, that
there is in the Father a proper hypostasis, which is conspicuous in the
Son. And thence also we easily infer the hypostasis of the Son, which
distinguishes him from the Father. The same reasoning is applicable to the
Holy Spirit; for we shall soon prove him also to be God; and yet he must,
of necessity, be considered as distinct from the Father. But this is not a
distinction of the essence, which it is unlawful to represent as any other
than simple and undivided. It follows, therefore, if the testimony of the
Apostle be credited, that there are in God three _hypostases_. And, as the
Latins have expressed the same thing by the word _person_, it is too
fastidious and obstinate to contend about so clear a matter. If we wish to
translate word for word, we may call it _subsistence_. Many, in the same
sense, have called it _substance_. Nor has the word _person_ been used by
the Latins only; but the Greeks also, for the sake of testifying their
consent to this doctrine, taught the existence of three προσωπα (persons)
in God. But both Greeks and Latins, notwithstanding any verbal difference,
are in perfect harmony respecting the doctrine itself.

III. Now, though heretics rail at the word _person_, or some morose and
obstinate men clamorously refuse to admit a name of human invention; since
they cannot make us assert that there are three, each of whom is entirely
God, nor yet that there are more gods than one, how very unreasonable is
it to reprobate words which express nothing but what is testified and
recorded in the Scriptures! It were better, say they, to restrain not only
our thoughts, but our expressions also, within the limits of the
Scripture, than to introduce exotic words, which may generate future
dissensions and disputes; for thus we weary ourselves with verbal
controversies; thus the truth is lost in altercation; thus charity expires
in odious contention. If they call every word exotic, which cannot be
found in the Scriptures in so many syllables, they impose on us a law
which is very unreasonable, and which condemns all interpretation, but
what is composed of detached texts of Scripture connected together. But if
by exotic they mean that which is curiously contrived, and superstitiously
defended, which tends to contention more than to edification, the use of
which is either unseasonable or unprofitable, which offends pious ears
with its harshness, and seduces persons from the simplicity of the Divine
word, I most cordially embrace their modest opinion. For I think that we
ought to speak of God with the same religious caution, which should govern
our thoughts of him; since all the thoughts that we entertain concerning
him merely from ourselves, are foolish, and all our expressions absurd.
But there is a proper medium to be observed: we should seek in the
Scriptures a certain rule, both for thinking and for speaking; by which we
may regulate all the thoughts of our minds, and all the words of our
mouths. But what forbids our expressing, in plainer words, those things
which, in the Scriptures, are, to our understanding, intricate and
obscure, provided our expressions religiously and faithfully convey the
true sense of the Scripture, and are used with modest caution, and not
without sufficient occasion? Of this, examples sufficiently numerous are
not wanting. But, when it shall have been proved, that the Church was
absolutely necessitated to use the terms Trinity and Persons, if any one
then censures the novelty of the words, may he not be justly considered as
offended at the light of the truth? as having no other cause of censure,
but that the truth is explained and elucidated?

IV. But such verbal novelty (if it must have this appellation) is
principally used, when the truth is to be asserted in opposition to
malicious cavillers, who elude it by crafty evasions; of which we have too
much experience in the present day, who find great difficulty in refuting
the enemies of pure and sound doctrine: possessed of serpentine lubricity,
they escape by the most artful expedients, unless they are vigorously
pursued, and held fast when once caught. Thus the ancients, pestered with
various controversies against erroneous dogmas, were constrained to
express their sentiments with the utmost perspicuity, that they might
leave no subterfuges to the impious, who availed themselves of obscure
expressions, for the concealment of their errors. Unable to resist the
clear testimonies of the Scriptures, Arius confessed Christ to be God, and
the Son of God; and, as though this were all that was necessary, he
pretended to agree with the Church at large. But, at the same time, he
continued to maintain that Christ was created, and had a beginning like
other creatures. To draw the versatile subtlety of this man from its
concealment, the ancient Fathers proceeded further, and declared Christ to
be the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Here
impiety openly discovered itself, when the Arians began inveterately to
hate and execrate the name ὁμοούσιος, (consubstantial.) But if, in the
first instance, they had sincerely and cordially confessed Christ to be
God, they would not have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father.
Who can dare to censure those good men, as quarrelsome and contentious,
for having kindled such a flame of controversy, and disturbed the peace of
the Church on account of one little word? That little word distinguished
Christians, who held the pure faith, from sacrilegious Arians. Afterwards
arose Sabellius, who considered the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
as little more than empty sounds; arguing, that they were not used on
account of any real distinction, but were different attributes of God,
whose attributes of this kind are numerous. If the point came to be
controverted, he confessed, that he believed the Father to be God, the Son
God, and the Holy Spirit God; but he would readily evade all the force of
this confession, by adding, that he had said no other than if he had
called God potent, and just, and wise. And thus he came to another
conclusion, that the Father is the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is the
Father, without any order or distinction. The good doctors of that age,
who had the interest of religion at heart, in order to counteract the
wickedness of this man, maintained, on the contrary, that they ought
really to acknowledge three peculiar properties in one God. And, to defend
themselves against his intricate subtleties, by the plain and simple
truth, they affirmed, that they truly subsisted in the one God; or, what
is the same, that in the unity of God there subsisted a trinity of
Persons.

V. If, then, the words have not been rashly invented, we should beware
lest we be convicted of fastidious temerity in rejecting them. I could
wish them, indeed, to be buried in oblivion, provided this faith were
universally received, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the one
God; and that nevertheless the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the
Son, but that they are distinguished from each other by some peculiar
property. I am not so rigidly precise as to be fond of contending for mere
words. For I observe that the ancients, who otherwise speak on these
subjects with great piety, are not consistent with each other, nor, in all
cases, with themselves. For what forms of expression, adopted by councils,
does Hilary excuse! To what extremes does Augustine sometimes proceed! How
different are the Greeks from the Latins! But of this variation, let one
example suffice: when the Latins would translate the word ὁμοούσιος, they
called it _consubstantial_, signifying the _substance_ of the Father and
the Son to be one, and thus using _substance_ for _essence_. Whence also
Jerome, writing to Damasus, pronounces it to be sacrilege to say that
there are three _substances_ in God. Yet, that there are three
_substances_ in God, you will find asserted in Hilary more than a hundred
times. But how perplexed is Jerome on the word _hypostasis_! For he
suspects some latent poison in the assertion, that there are three
_hypostases_ in God. And if any one uses this word in a pious sense, he
refrains not from calling it an improper expression; if, indeed, he was
sincere in this declaration, and did not rather knowingly and wilfully
endeavour to asperse, with a groundless calumny, the bishops of the East,
whom he hated. He certainly discovers not much ingenuousness in affirming
that, in all the profane schools, οὐσία (essence) is the same as
ὑπόστασις, (hypostasis,) which the trite and common use of the words
universally contradicts. More modesty and liberality are discovered by
Augustine, who, though he asserts that the word _hypostasis_, in this
sense, is new to Latin ears, yet leaves the Greeks their usual
phraseology, and even peaceably tolerates the Latins, who had imitated
their language; and the account of Socrates, in the sixth book of his
Tripartite History, seems to imply, that it was by ignorant men that it
had first been improperly applied to this subject. The same Hilary accuses
the heretics of a great crime, in constraining him, by their wickedness,
to expose to the danger of human language those things which ought to be
confined within the religion of the mind; plainly avowing that this is to
do things unlawful, to express things inexpressible, to assume things not
conceded. A little after, he largely excuses himself for his boldness in
bringing forward new terms; for, when he has used the names of nature,
Father, Son, and Spirit, he immediately adds, that whatever is sought
further, is beyond the signification of language, beyond the reach of our
senses, beyond the conception of our understanding. And, in another place,
he pronounces that happy were the bishops of Gaul, who had neither
composed, nor received, nor even known, any other confession but that
ancient and very simple one, which had been received in all the churches
from the days of the Apostles. Very similar is the excuse of Augustine,
that this word was extorted by necessity, on account of the poverty of
human language on so great a subject, not for the sake of expressing what
God is, but to avoid passing it over in total silence, that the Father,
Son, and Spirit are three. This moderation of those holy men should teach
us, not to pass such severe censures on those who are unwilling to
subscribe to expressions adopted by us, provided they are not actuated by
pride, perverseness, or disingenuous subtlety. But let them also, on the
other hand, consider the great necessity which constrains us to use such
language, that, by degrees, they may at length be accustomed to a useful
phraseology. Let them also learn to beware, since we have to oppose the
Arians on one side, and the Sabellians on the other, lest, while they take
offence at both these parties being deprived of all opportunity of
evasion, they cause some suspicion that they are themselves the disciples
either of Arius or of Sabellius. Arius confesses, “that Christ is God;”
but maintains also, “that he was created, and had a beginning.” He
acknowledges that Christ is “one with the Father;” but secretly whispers
in the ears of his disciples, that he is “united to him,” like the rest of
the faithful, though by a singular privilege. Say that he is
_consubstantial_, you tear off the mask from the hypocrite, and yet you
add nothing to the Scriptures. Sabellius asserts, “that the names Father,
Son, and Spirit, are expressive of no distinction in the Godhead.” Say
that they are three, and he will exclaim, that you are talking of “three
gods.” Say, “that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of
Persons,” and you will at once express what the Scriptures declare, and
will restrain such frivolous loquacity. Now, if any persons are prevented,
by such excessive scrupulousness, from admitting these terms, yet not one
of them can deny, that, when the Scripture speaks of one God, it should be
understood of a unity of substance; and that, when it speaks of three in
one essence, it denotes the Persons in this trinity. When this is honestly
confessed, we have no further concern about words. But I have found, by
long and frequent experience, that those who pertinaciously contend about
words, cherish some latent poison; so that it were better designedly to
provoke their resentment, than to use obscure language for the sake of
obtaining their favour.

VI. But, leaving the dispute about terms, I shall now enter on the
discussion of the subject itself. What I denominate a Person, is a
subsistence in the Divine essence, which is related to the others, and yet
distinguished from them by an incommunicable property. By the word
_subsistence_ we mean something different from the word _essence_. For, if
the _Word_ were simply God, and had no peculiar property, John had been
guilty of impropriety in saying that he was always _with God_.(192) When
he immediately adds, that _the Word_ also _was God_, he reminds us of the
unity of the essence. But because he could not be _with God_, without
subsisting in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, although
inseparably connected with the essence, has a peculiar mark, by which it
is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences
has a relation to the others, but is distinguished from them by a peculiar
property. We particularly use the word _relation_, (or _comparison_,)
here, because, when mention is made simply and indefinitely of God, this
name pertains no less to the Son and Spirit, than to the Father. But
whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the property peculiar to
each distinguishes him from the other. Thirdly, whatever is proper to each
of them, I assert to be incommunicable, because whatever is ascribed to
the Father as a character of distinction, cannot be applied or transferred
to the Son. Nor, indeed, do I disapprove of the definition of Tertullian,
if rightly understood: “That there is in God a certain distribution or
economy, which makes no change in the unity of the essence.”

VII. But before I proceed any further, I must prove the Deity of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit; after which we shall see how they differ from each
other. When the Scripture speaks of _the Word of God_, it certainly were
very absurd to imagine it to be only a transient and momentary sound,
emitted into the air, and coming forth from God himself; of which nature
were the oracles, given to the fathers, and all the prophecies. It is
rather to be understood of the eternal wisdom residing in God, whence the
oracles, and all the prophecies, proceeded. For, according to the
testimony of Peter,(193) the ancient Prophets spake by the Spirit of
Christ no less than the Apostles and all the succeeding ministers of the
heavenly doctrine. But, as Christ had not yet been manifested, we must
necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before the
world began. And if the Spirit that inspired the Prophets was the Spirit
of the Word, we conclude, beyond all doubt, that the Word was truly God.
And this is taught by Moses, with sufficient perspicuity, in the creation
of the world, in which he represents the Word as acting such a conspicuous
part. For why does he relate that God, in the creation of each of his
works, said, Let this or that be done, but that the unsearchable glory of
God may resplendently appear in his image? Captious and loquacious men
would readily evade this argument, by saying, that the _Word_ imports an
order or command; but the Apostles are better interpreters, who declare,
that the worlds were created by the Son, and that he “upholds all things
by the word of his power.”(194) For here we see that the _Word_ intends
the nod or mandate of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential
Son of the Father. Nor, to the wise and sober, is there any obscurity in
that passage of Solomon, where he introduces Wisdom as begotten of the
Father before time began, and presiding at the creation of the world, and
over all the works of God. For, to pretend that this denotes some
temporary expression of the will of God, were foolish and frivolous;
whereas God then intended to discover his fixed and eternal counsel, and
even something more secret. To the same purpose also is that assertion of
Christ, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”(195) For, by affirming
that, from the beginning of the world, he had continually coöperated with
the Father, he makes a more explicit declaration of what had been briefly
glanced at by Moses. We conclude, therefore, that God spake thus at the
creation, that the Word might have his part in the work, and so that
operation be common to both. But John speaks more clearly than all others,
when he represents _the Word_, who from the beginning _was God with God_,
as in union with the Father, the original cause of all things. For to the
Word he both attributes a real and permanent essence, and assigns some
peculiar property; and plainly shows how God, by speaking, created the
world. Therefore, as all Divine revelations are justly entitled _the word
of God_, so we ought chiefly to esteem that substantial Word the source of
all revelations, who is liable to no variation, who remains with God
perpetually one and the same, and who is God himself.

VIII. Here we are interrupted by some clamorous objectors, who, since they
cannot openly rob him of his divinity, secretly steal from him his
eternity. For they say, that the Word only began to exist, when God opened
his sacred mouth in the creation of the world. But they are too
inconsiderate in imagining something new in the substance of God. For, as
those names of God, which relate to his external works, began to be
ascribed to him after the existence of those works, as when he is called
the Creator of heaven and earth, so piety neither acknowledges nor admits
any name, signifying that God has found any thing new to happen to
himself. For, could any thing, from any quarter, effect a change in him,
it would contradict the assertion of James, that “every good gift and
every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of
lights, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning.”(196) Nothing,
then, is more intolerable, than to suppose a beginning of that Word, which
was always God, and afterwards the Creator of the world. But they argue,
in their own apprehension most acutely, that Moses, by representing God as
having then spoken for the first time, implies also, that there was no
Word in him before; than which nothing is more absurd. For it is not to be
concluded, because any thing begins to be manifested at a certain time,
that it had no prior existence. I form a very different conclusion; that,
since, in the very instant when God said, “Let there be light,”(197) the
power of the Word was clearly manifested, the Word must have existed long
before. But if any one inquires, how long, he will find no beginning. For
he limits no certain period of time, when he himself says, “O Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was.”(198) Nor is this omitted by John; for, before he
descends to the creation of the world, he declares that the Word “was in
the beginning with God.”(199) We therefore conclude again, that the Word,
conceived of God before time began, perpetually remained with him, which
proves his eternity, his true essence, and his divinity.

IX. Though I advert not yet to the person of the Mediator, but defer it to
that part of the work which will relate to redemption, yet, since it
ought, without controversy, to be believed by all, that Christ is the very
same Word clothed in flesh, any testimonies which assert the Deity of
Christ, will be very properly introduced here. When it is said, in the
forty‐fifth Psalm, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” the Jews
endeavour to evade its force, by pleading that the name Elohim is
applicable also to angels, and to men of dignity and power. But there
cannot be found in the Scripture a similar passage, which erects an
eternal throne for a creature; for he is not merely called God, but is
also declared to possess an eternal dominion. Besides, this title is never
given to a creature, without some addition, as when it is said that Moses
should be “a god to Pharaoh.”(200) Some read it in the genitive case, “Thy
throne is of God,” which is extremely insipid. I confess, indeed, that
what is eminently and singularly excellent, is frequently called Divine;
but it sufficiently appears from the context, that such a meaning would be
uncouth and forced, and totally inapplicable here. But, if their
perverseness refuse to yield this point, there certainly is no obscurity
in Isaiah, where he introduces Christ as God, and as crowned with supreme
power, which is the prerogative of God alone. “His name,” says he, “shall
be called the Mighty God, the Father of eternity,” &c.(201) Here also the
Jews object, and invert the reading of the passage in this manner: “This
is the name by which the mighty God, the Father of eternity, shall call
him,” &c.; so that they would leave the Son only the title of Prince of
peace. But to what purpose would so many epithets be accumulated in this
passage on God the Father, when the design of the prophet is to
distinguish Christ by such eminent characters as may establish our faith
in him? Wherefore, there can be no doubt that he is there denominated the
Mighty God, just as, a little before, he is called Immanuel. But nothing
can be required plainer than a passage in Jeremiah, that this should be
the name whereby the Branch of David shall be called “Jehovah our
righteousness.”(202) For since the Jews themselves teach, that all other
names of God are mere epithets, but that this alone, which they call
ineffable, is a proper name expressive of his Essence, we conclude, that
the Son is the one eternal God, who declares, in another place, that he
“will not give his glory to another.”(203) This also they endeavour to
evade, because Moses imposed this name on an altar which he built, and
Ezekiel on the city of the new Jerusalem. But who does not perceive, that
the altar was erected as a monument of Moses having been exalted by God,
and that Jerusalem is honoured with the name of God, only as a testimony
of the Divine presence? For thus speaks the prophet: “The name of the city
shall be, Jehovah is there.”(204) But Moses expresses himself thus: He
“built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah‐nissi,” (my
exaltation.)(205) But there is more contention about another passage of
Jeremiah, where the same title is given to Jerusalem in these words: “This
is the name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah our
righteousness.”(206) But this testimony is so far from opposing the truth
which we are defending, that it rather confirms it. For, having before
testified that Christ is the true Jehovah, from whom righteousness
proceeds, he now pronounces that the church will have such a clear
apprehension of it, as to be able to glory in the same name. In the former
place, then, is shown the original cause of righteousness, in the latter
the effect.

X. Now, if these things do not satisfy the Jews, I see not by what cavils
they can evade the accounts of Jehovah having so frequently appeared in
the character of an angel. An angel is said to have appeared to the holy
fathers. He claims for himself the name of the eternal God. If it be
objected, that this is spoken with regard to the character which he
sustains, this by no means removes the difficulty. For a servant would
never rob God of his honour, by permitting sacrifice to be offered to
himself. But the angel, refusing to eat bread, commands a sacrifice to be
offered to Jehovah. He afterwards demonstrates that he is really Jehovah
himself. Therefore Manoah and his wife conclude, from this evidence, that
they have seen, not a mere angel, but God himself. Hence he says, “We
shall surely die, because we have seen God.” When his wife replies, “If
the Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have received” a sacrifice
“at our hands,”(207) she clearly acknowledges him to be God, who before is
called an angel. Moreover, the reply of the angel himself removes every
doubt: “Why askest thou after my name, seeing it is wonderful?” So much
the more detestable is the impiety of Servetus, in asserting that God
never appeared to Abraham and the other patriarchs, but that they
worshipped an angel in his stead. But the orthodox doctors of the church
have truly and wisely understood and taught, that the same chief angel was
the Word of God, who even then began to perform some services introductory
to his execution of the office of Mediator. For though he was not yet
incarnate, he descended, as it were, in a mediatorial capacity, that he
might approach the faithful with greater familiarity. His familiar
intercourse with men gave him the name of an angel; yet he still retained
what properly belonged to him, and continued the ineffably glorious God.
The same truth is attested by Hosea, who, after relating the wrestling of
Jacob with an angel, says, “The Lord (Jehovah) God of hosts; Jehovah is
his memorial.”(208) Servetus again cavils, that God employed the person of
an angel; as though the prophet did not confirm what had been delivered by
Moses,—“Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?” And the
confession of the holy patriarch, when he says, “I have seen God face to
face,”(209) sufficiently declares, that he was not a created angel, but
one in whom resided the fulness of Deity. Hence, also, the representation
of Paul, that Christ was the conductor of the people in the wilderness;
because, though the time of his humiliation was not yet arrived, the
eternal Word then exhibited a type of the office to which he was
appointed. Now, if the second chapter of Zechariah be strictly and coolly
examined, the angel who sends another angel is immediately pronounced the
God of hosts, and supreme power is ascribed to him. I omit testimonies
innumerable on which our faith safely rests, although they have little
influence on the Jews. For when it is said in Isaiah, “Lo, this is our
God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is Jehovah;”(210)
all who have eyes may perceive that this is God, who arises for the
salvation of his people. And the emphatical repetition of these pointed
expressions forbids an application of this passage to any other than to
Christ. But still more plain and decisive is a passage of Malachi, where
he prophesies, that “the Lord, who was then sought, should come into his
temple.”(211) The temple was exclusively consecrated to the one Most High
God; yet the prophet claims it as belonging to Christ. Whence it follows,
that he is the same God that was always worshipped among the Jews.

XI. The New Testament abounds with innumerable testimonies. We must,
therefore, endeavour briefly to select a few, rather than to collect them
all. Though the Apostles spake of him after he had appeared in flesh as
the Mediator, yet all that I shall adduce will be adapted to prove his
eternal Deity. In the first place, it is worthy of particular observation,
that the apostle represents those things which were predicted concerning
the eternal God, as either already exhibited in Christ, or to be
accomplished in him at some future period. The prediction of Isaiah, that
the Lord of Hosts would be “for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of
offence to both the houses of Israel,”(212) Paul asserts to have been
fulfilled in Christ.(213) Therefore he declares, that Christ is the Lord
of Hosts. There is a similar instance in another place: “We shall all
stand,” says he, “before the judgment‐seat of Christ. For it is written,
As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue
shall confess to God.”(214) Since God, in Isaiah,(215) declares this
concerning himself, and Christ actually exhibits it in his own person, it
follows, that he is that very God, whose glory cannot be transferred to
another. The apostle’s quotation from the Psalms also, in his Epistle to
the Ephesians, is evidently applicable to none but God: “When he ascended
up on high, he led captivity captive:”(216) understanding that ascension
to have been prefigured by the exertions of the Divine power in the signal
victories of David over the heathen nations, he signifies, that the text
was more fully accomplished in Christ. Thus John attests that it was the
glory of the Son which was revealed in a vision to Isaiah; whereas the
prophet himself records that he saw the majesty of God.(217) And those
praises which the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ascribes to the
Son, beyond all doubt most evidently belong to God: “Thou, Lord, in the
beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the
works of thine hands,” &c. Again, “Let all the angels of God worship
him.”(218) Nor is it any misapplication of them, when he refers them to
Christ; since all that is predicted in those Psalms has been accomplished
only by him. For it was He who arose and had mercy upon Zion; it was He
who claimed as his own the dominion over all nations and islands. And why
should John, after having affirmed, at the commencement of his
Gospel,(219) that the Word was always God, have hesitated to attribute to
Christ the majesty of God? And why should Paul have been afraid to place
Christ on the tribunal of God,(220) after having so publicly preached his
Divinity, when he called him “God blessed for ever?”(221) And, to show how
consistent he is with himself on this subject, he says, also, that “God
was manifest in the flesh.”(222) If he is “God blessed for ever,” he is
the same to whom this apostle, in another place, affirms all glory and
honour to be due. And he conceals not, but openly proclaims, that, “being
in the form of God,” he “thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but
made himself of no reputation.”(223) And, lest the impious might object,
that he is a sort of artificial God, John goes further, and affirms, that
“This is the true God, and eternal life;”(224) although we ought to be
fully satisfied by his being called God, especially by a witness who
expressly avers that there are no more gods than one; I mean Paul, who
says, “though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in
earth; to us there is but one God, of whom are all things.”(225) When we
hear, from the same mouth, that “God was manifested in the flesh,” that
“God hath purchased the Church with his own blood,”—why do we imagine a
second God, whom he by no means acknowledges? And there is no doubt that
all the pious were of the same opinion. Thomas, likewise, by publicly
confessing him to be “his Lord and God,” declares him to be the same true
God whom he had always worshipped.(226)

XII. If we judge of his Divinity from the works which the Scriptures
attribute to him, it will thence appear with increasing evidence. For when
he said, that he had, from the beginning, continually coöperated with the
Father, the Jews, stupid as they were about his other declarations, yet
perceived, that he assumed to himself Divine power; and, therefore, as
John informs us, they “sought the more to kill him; because he not only
had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making
himself equal with God.”(227) How great, then, must be our stupidity, if
we perceive not this passage to be a plain assertion of his Divinity! To
preside over the world by his almighty providence, and to govern all
things by the rod of his own power, (which the Apostle attributes to
him,)(228) belongs exclusively to the Creator. And he participates with
the Father, not only in the government of the world, but also in all other
offices, which cannot be communicated to creatures. The Lord proclaims, by
the prophet, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions, for
mine own sake.”(229) According to this declaration, when the Jews thought
that Christ committed an injury against God, by undertaking to forgive
sins,(230) he not only asserted in express terms, that this power belonged
to him, but proved it by a miracle. We see, therefore, that he hath not
the ministry, but the power of remission of sins, which the Lord declares
shall never be transferred from himself to another. Is it not the
prerogative of God alone to examine and penetrate the secret thoughts of
the heart? Yet Christ possessed that power; which is a proof of his
Divinity.

XIII. But with what perspicuity of evidence does it appear in his
miracles! Though I grant that the Prophets and Apostles performed miracles
similar and equal to his, yet there is a considerable difference in this
respect, that they, in their ministry, dispensed the favours of God,
whereas his miracles were performed by his exertions of his own power. He
sometimes, indeed, used prayer, that he might glorify the Father; but, in
most instances, we perceive the manifest displays of his own power. And
how should not he be the true author of miracles, who, by his own
authority, committed the dispensation of them to others? For the
Evangelists relate, that he gave his Apostles power to raise the dead, to
heal the leprous, to cast out devils, &c.(231) And they performed that
ministry in such a manner, as plainly to discover, that the power
proceeded solely from Christ. “In the name of Jesus Christ,” says Peter,
“arise and walk.”(232) It is no wonder, therefore, that Christ should
bring forward his miracles,(233) to convince the incredulity of the Jews,
since, being performed by his own power, they afforded most ample evidence
of his Divinity. Besides, if out of God there be no salvation, no
righteousness, no life, but Christ contains all these things in himself,
it certainly demonstrates him to be God. Let it not be objected, that life
and salvation are infused into him by God; for he is not said to have
received salvation, but to be himself salvation. And if no one be good but
God alone,(234) how can he be a mere man who is, I will not say good and
righteous, but goodness and righteousness itself? Even from the beginning
of the creation, according to the testimony of an Evangelist, “in him was
life; and the life” then existed as “the light of men.” Supported by such
proofs, therefore, we venture to repose our faith and hope on him; whereas
we know that it is impious and sacrilegious for any man to place his
confidence in creatures. He says, “Ye believe in God, believe also in
me.”(235) And in this sense Paul interprets two passages of
Isaiah—“Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” Again, “There
shall be a root of Jesse, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in
him shall the Gentiles trust.”(236) And why should we search for more
testimonies from Scripture, when this declaration occurs so frequently,
“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life”?(237) The invocation,
arising from faith, is also directed to him; which, nevertheless,
peculiarly belongs, if any thing peculiarly belongs, to the Divine
majesty. For a prophet says, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord
(Jehovah) shall be delivered.”(238) And Solomon, “The name of the Lord is
a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”(239) But the
name of Christ is invoked for salvation: it follows, therefore, that he is
Jehovah. Moreover, we have an example of such invocation in Stephen, when
he says, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”(240) And afterwards in the whole
Church, as Ananias testifies in the same book: “Lord, I have heard by many
of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints—that call on thy
name.”(241) And to make it more clearly understood, that “all the fulness
of the Godhead dwelleth bodily in Christ,” the Apostle confesses that he
had introduced among the Corinthians no other doctrine than the knowledge
of him, and that this had been the only subject of his preaching.(242)
What a remarkable and important consideration is it, that the name of the
Son only is preached to us, whereas God commands us to glory in the
knowledge of himself alone!(243) Who can dare to assert that he is a mere
creature, the knowledge of whom is our only glory? It must also be
remarked, that the salutations prefixed to the epistles of Paul implore
the same blessings from the Son as from the Father; whence we learn, not
only that those things, which our heavenly Father bestows, are obtained
for us by his intercession, but that the Son, by a communion of power, is
himself the author of them. This practical knowledge is unquestionably
more certain and solid than any idle speculation. For then the pious mind
has the nearest view of the Divine presence, and almost touches it, when
it experiences itself to be quickened, illuminated, saved, justified, and
sanctified.

XIV. Wherefore the proof of the Deity of the Spirit must be derived
principally from the same sources. There is no obscurity in the testimony
of Moses, in the history of the creation, that the Spirit of God was
expanded on the abyss or chaos;(244) for it signifies, not only that the
beautiful state of the world which we now behold owes its preservation to
the power of the Spirit, but that, previously to its being thus adorned,
the Spirit was engaged in brooding over the confused mass. The declaration
of Isaiah bids defiance to all cavils: “And now the Lord God, and his
Spirit, hath sent me.”(245) For the Holy Spirit is united in the exercise
of supreme power in the mission of Prophets, which is a proof of his
Divine majesty. But the best confirmation, as I have remarked, we shall
derive from familiar experience. For what the Scriptures ascribe to him,
and what we ourselves learn by the certain experience of piety, is not at
all applicable to any creature. For it is he who, being universally
diffused, sustains and animates all things in heaven and in earth. And
this very thing excludes him from the number of creatures, that he is
circumscribed by no limits, but transfuses through all his own vigorous
influence, to inspire them with being, life, and motion: this is clearly a
work of Deity. Again, if regeneration to an incorruptible life be more
important and excellent than any present life, what must we think of him
from whose power it proceeds? But the Scripture teaches, in various
places, that he is the author of regeneration by a power not derived, but
properly his own; and not of regeneration only, but likewise of the future
immortality. Finally, to him, as well as to the Son, are applied all those
offices which are peculiar to Deity. For he “searcheth even the deep
things of God,”(246) who admits no creature to a share in his councils. He
bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech;(247) whereas the Lord declares
to Moses, that this can only be done by himself.(248) So through him we
attain to a participation of God, to feel his vivifying energy upon us.
Our justification is his work. From him proceed power, sanctification,
truth, grace, and every other blessing we can conceive; since there is but
one Spirit, from whom every kind of gifts descends. For this passage of
Paul is worthy of particular attention: “There are diversities of gifts,
and there are differences of administrations, but the same Spirit;”(249)
because it represents him, not only as the principle and source of them,
but also as the author; which is yet more clearly expressed a little after
in these words: “All these worketh that only and the self‐same Spirit,
dividing to every man severally as he will.” For if he were not a
subsistence in the Deity, judgment and voluntary determination would never
be ascribed to him. Paul, therefore, very clearly attributes to the Spirit
Divine power, and thereby demonstrates him to be an hypostasis or
subsistence in God.

XV. Nor does the Scripture, when it speaks of him, refrain from giving him
the appellation of God. For Paul concludes that we are the temple of God,
because his Spirit dwelleth in us.(250) This must not be passed over
without particular notice; for the frequent promises of God, that he will
choose us for a temple for himself, receive no other accomplishment, than
by the inhabitation of his Spirit in us. Certainly, as Augustine
excellently observes, “If we were commanded to erect to the Spirit a
temple of wood and stone, forasmuch as God is the sole object of worship,
it would be a clear proof of his Divinity; how much clearer, then, is the
proof, now that we are commanded, not to erect one, but to be ourselves
his temples!” And the Apostle calls us sometimes the temple of God, and
sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, both in the same signification.
Peter, reprehending Ananias for having “lied to the Holy Ghost,” told him
that he had “not lied unto men, but unto God.”(251) And where Isaiah(252)
introduces the Lord of hosts as the speaker, Paul(253) informs us that it
is the Holy Spirit who speaks. Indeed, while the Prophets invariably
declare, that the words which they utter are those of the Lord of hosts,
Christ and the Apostles refer them to the Holy Spirit; whence it follows,
that he is the true Jehovah, who is the primary author of the prophecies.
Again, God complains that his anger was provoked by the perverseness of
the people; Isaiah, in reference to the same conduct, says, that “they
vexed his Holy Spirit.”(254) Lastly, if blasphemy against the Spirit be
not forgiven, either in this world or in that which is to come,(255)
whilst a man may obtain pardon who has been guilty of blasphemy against
the Son, this is an open declaration of his Divine majesty, to defame or
degrade which is an inexpiable crime. I intentionally pass over many
testimonies which were used by the fathers. To them there appeared much
plausibility in citing this passage from David, “By the word of the Lord
were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his
mouth;”(256) to prove that the creation of the world was the work of the
Holy Spirit, as well as of the Son. But since a repetition of the same
thing twice is common in the Psalms, and in Isaiah “the spirit of his
mouth” means the same as “his word,” this is but a weak argument.
Therefore I have determined to confine myself to a sober statement of
those evidences on which pious minds may satisfactorily rest.

XVI. As God afforded a clearer manifestation of himself at the advent of
Christ, the three Persons also then became better known. Among many
testimonies, let us be satisfied with this one: Paul connects together
these three, Lord, Faith, and Baptism,(257) in such a manner as to reason
from one to another. Since there is but one faith, hence he proves that
there is but one Lord; since there is but one baptism, he shows that there
is also but one faith. Therefore, if we are initiated by baptism into the
faith and religion of one God, we must necessarily suppose him to be the
true God, into whose name we are baptized. Nor can it be doubted but that
in this solemn commission, “Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Christ intended to testify, that the
perfect light of faith was now exhibited. For this is equivalent to being
baptized into the name of the one God, who hath clearly manifested himself
in the Father, Son, and Spirit; whence it evidently appears, that in the
Divine Essence there exist three Persons, in whom is known the one God.
And truly, since faith ought not to be looking about hither and thither,
or to be wandering through the varieties of inconstancy, but to direct its
views towards the one God, to be fixed on him, and to adhere to him,—it
may easily be proved from these premises, that, if there be various kinds
of faith, there must also be a plurality of gods. Baptism, being a
sacrament of faith, confirms to us the unity of God, because it is but
one. Hence, also, we conclude, that it is not lawful to be baptized,
except into the name of the one God; because we embrace the faith of him,
into whose name we are baptized. What, then, was intended by Christ, when
he commanded baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but that one faith ought to be exercised
in the Father, Son, and Spirit? and what is that but a clear testimony,
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are the one God? Therefore,
since it is an undeniable truth, that there is one God, and only one, we
conclude the Word and Spirit to be no other than the very Essence of the
Deity. The greatest degree of folly was betrayed by the Arians, who
confessed the Divinity of the Son, but denied him to possess the substance
of God. Nor were the Macedonians free from a similar delusion, who would
explain the term “Spirit” to mean only the gifts of grace conferred upon
man. For as wisdom, understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of
the Lord, proceed from him, so he alone is the Spirit of wisdom, prudence,
fortitude, and piety. Nor is he himself divided according to the
distribution of his graces; but, as the Apostle declares, how variously
soever they are divided, he always remains one and the same.(258)

XVII. On the other hand, also, we find in the Scriptures a distinction
between the Father and the Word, between the Word and the Spirit; in the
discussion of which the magnitude of the mystery reminds us that we ought
to proceed with the utmost reverence and sobriety. I am exceedingly
pleased with this observation of Gregory Nazianzen: “I cannot think of the
_one_, but I am immediately surrounded with the splendour of the _three_;
nor can I clearly discover the _three_, but I am suddenly carried back to
the _one_.” Wherefore let us not imagine such a trinity of Persons, as
includes an idea of separation, or does not immediately recall us to the
unity. The names of Father, Son, and Spirit, certainly imply a real
distinction; let no one suppose them to be mere epithets, by which God is
variously designated from his works; but it is a distinction, not a
division. The passages already cited show, that the Son has a property, by
which he is distinguished from the Father; because the Word had not been
with God, or had his glory with the Father, unless he had been distinct
from him. He likewise distinguishes the Father from himself, when he says,
“that there is another that beareth witness of him.”(259) And to the same
effect is what is declared in another place, that the Father created all
things by the Word; which he could not have done, unless he had been in
some sense distinct from him. Besides, the Father descended not to the
earth, but he who came forth from the Father. The Father neither died nor
rose again, but he who was sent by the Father. Nor did this distinction
commence at the incarnation, but it is evident, that, before that period,
he was the only begotten in the bosom of the Father.(260) For who can
undertake to assert, that the Son first entered into the bosom of the
Father, when he descended from heaven to assume a human nature? He,
therefore, was in the bosom of the Father before, and possessed his glory
with the Father. The distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father is
announced by Christ, when he says, that he “proceedeth from the
Father.”(261) But how often does he represent him as another, distinct
from himself! as when he promises that “another Comforter”(262) should be
sent, and in many other places.

XVIII. I doubt the propriety of borrowing similitudes from human things,
to express the force of this distinction. The fathers sometimes practise
this method; but they likewise confess the great disproportion of all the
similitudes which they introduce. Wherefore I greatly dread, in this
instance, every degree of presumption; lest the introduction of any thing
unseasonable should afford an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of
error to the ignorant. Yet it is not right to be silent on the distinction
which we find expressed in the Scriptures; which is this—that to the
Father is attributed the principle of action, the fountain and source of
all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the arrangement of all
operations; and the power and efficacy of the action is assigned to the
Spirit. Moreover, though eternity belongs to the Father, and to the Son
and Spirit also, since God can never have been destitute of his wisdom or
his power, and in eternity we must not inquire after any thing prior or
posterior,—yet the observation of order is not vain or superfluous, while
the Father is mentioned as first; in the next place the Son, as from him;
and then the Spirit, as from both. For the mind of every man naturally
inclines to the consideration, first, of God; secondly, of the wisdom
emanating from him; and lastly, of the power by which he executes the
decrees of his wisdom. For this reason the Son is said to be from the
Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son; and that in
various places, but nowhere more clearly than in the eighth chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans, where the same Spirit is indifferently denominated
“the Spirit of Christ,” and “the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from
the dead,” and that without any impropriety. For Peter also testifies that
it was the Spirit of Christ by whom the prophets prophesied;(263) whereas
the Scripture so frequently declares that it was the Spirit of God the
Father.

XIX. This distinction is so far from opposing the most absolute simplicity
and unity of the Divine Being, that it affords a proof that the Son is one
God with the Father, because he has the same Spirit with him; and that the
Spirit is not a different substance from the Father and the Son, because
he is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For the whole nature is in
each hypostasis, and each has something peculiar to himself. The Father is
entirely in the Son, and the Son entirely in the Father, according to his
own declaration, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me;”(264) nor do
ecclesiastical writers allow that one is divided from the other by any
difference of essence. “These distinctive appellations,” says Augustine,
“denote their reciprocal relations to each other, and not the substance
itself, which is but one.” This explanation may serve to reconcile the
opinions of the fathers, which would otherwise appear totally repugnant to
each other. For sometimes they state that the Son originates from the
Father, and at other times assert that he has essential Divinity from
himself, and so is, together with the Father, the one first cause of all.
Augustine, in another place, admirably and perspicuously explains the
cause of this diversity, in the following manner: “Christ, considered in
himself, is called God; but with relation to the Father, he is called the
Son.” And again, “The Father, considered in himself, is called God; but
with relation to the Son, he is called the Father. He who, with relation
to the Son, is called the Father, is not the Son; he who, with relation to
the Father, is called the Son, is not the Father; they who are severally
called the Father and the Son, are the same God.” Therefore, when we speak
simply of the Son, without reference to the Father, we truly and properly
assert him to be self‐existent, and therefore call him the sole first
cause; but, when we distinctly treat of the relation between him and the
Father, we justly represent him as originating from the Father. The first
book of Augustine on the Trinity is entirely occupied with the explication
of this subject; and it is far more safe to rest satisfied with that
relation which he states, than by curiously penetrating into the sublime
mystery, to wander through a multitude of vain speculations.

XX. Therefore, let such as love sobriety, and will be contented with the
measure of faith, briefly attend to what is useful to be known; which is,
that, when we profess to believe in one God, the word _God_ denotes a
single and simple essence, in which we comprehend three Persons, or
hypostases; and that, therefore, whenever the word _God_ is used
indefinitely, the Son and Spirit are intended as much as the Father; but
when the Son is associated with the Father, that introduces the reciprocal
relation of one to the other; and thus we distinguish between the Persons.
But, since the peculiar properties of the Persons produce a certain order,
so that the original cause is in the Father, whenever the Father and the
Son or Spirit are mentioned together, the name of God is peculiarly
ascribed to the Father: by this method the unity of the essence is
preserved, and the order is retained; which, however, derogates nothing
from the Deity of the Son and Spirit. And indeed, as we have already seen
that the Apostles assert him to be the Son of God, whom Moses and the
Prophets have represented as Jehovah, it is always necessary to recur to
the unity of the essence. Wherefore it would be a detestable sacrilege for
us to call the Son another God different from the Father; because the
simple name of God admits of no relation; nor can God, with respect to
himself, be denominated either the one or the other. Now, that the name
“Jehovah,” in an indefinite sense, is applicable to Christ, appears even
from the words of Paul: “for this thing I besought the Lord thrice;”(265)
because, after relating the answer of Christ, “My grace is sufficient for
thee,” he immediately subjoins, “That the power of Christ may rest upon
me.” For it is certain that the word “Lord” is there used for “Jehovah;”
and to restrict it to the person of the Mediator, would be frivolous and
puerile, since it is an absolute declaration, containing no comparison
between the Son and the Father. And we know that the Apostles, following
the custom of the Greek translators, invariably use the word Κυριος,
(Lord,) instead of Jehovah. And, not to seek far for an example of this,
Paul prayed to the Lord in no other sense than is intended in a passage of
Joel, cited by Peter: “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall
be saved.”(266) But for the peculiar ascription of this name to the Son,
another reason will be given in its proper place; suffice it at present to
observe that, when Paul had prayed to God absolutely, he immediately
subjoins the name of Christ. Thus also the whole Deity is by Christ
himself denominated “a Spirit.” For nothing opposes the spirituality of
the whole Divine essence, in which are comprehended the Father, the Son,
and the Spirit; which is plain from the Scripture. For as we there find
God denominated a Spirit, so we find also the Holy Spirit, forasmuch as he
is an hypostasis of the whole essence, represented both as the Spirit of
God, and as proceeding from God.

XXI. But since Satan, in order to subvert the very foundations of our
faith, has always been exciting great contentions concerning the Divine
essence of the Son and Spirit, and the distinction of the Persons; and in
almost all ages has instigated impious spirits to vex the orthodox
teachers on this account; and is also endeavouring, in the present day,
with the old embers, to kindle a new flame; it becomes necessary here to
refute the perverse and fanciful notions which some persons have imbibed.
Hitherto it has been our principal design to instruct the docile, and not
to combat the obstinate and contentious: but now, having calmly explained
and proved the truth, we must vindicate it from all the cavils of the
wicked; although I shall make it my principal study, that those who
readily and implicitly attend to the Divine word, may have stable ground
on which they may confidently rest. On this, indeed, if on any of the
secret mysteries of the Scripture, we ought to philosophize with great
sobriety and moderation; and also with extreme caution, lest either our
ideas or our language should proceed beyond the limits of the Divine word.
For how can the infinite essence of God be defined by the narrow capacity
of the human mind, which could never yet certainly determine the nature of
the body of the sun, though the object of our daily contemplation? How can
the human mind, by its own efforts, penetrate into an examination of the
essence of God, when it is totally ignorant of its own? Wherefore let us
freely leave to God the knowledge of himself. For “he alone,” as Hilary
says, “is a competent witness for himself, being only known by himself.”
And we shall certainly leave it to him, if our conceptions of him
correspond to the manifestations which he has given us of himself, and our
inquiries concerning him are confined to his word. There are extant on
this argument five homilies of Chrysostom against the Anomœi; which,
however, were not sufficient to restrain the presumptuous garrulity of
those sophists. For they discovered no greater modesty in this instance
than in every other. The very unhappy consequences of this temerity should
warn us to study this question with more docility than subtlety, and not
allow ourselves to investigate God any where but in his sacred word, or to
form any ideas of him but such as are agreeable to his word, or to speak
any thing concerning him but what is derived from the same word. But if
the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, in the one Deity, as it is not
easy to be comprehended, occasions some understandings more labour and
trouble than is desirable, let them remember that the mind of man, when it
indulges its curiosity, enters into a labyrinth; and let them submit to be
guided by the heavenly oracles, however they may not comprehend the height
of this mystery.

XXII. To compose a catalogue of the errors, by which the purity of the
faith has been attacked on this point of doctrine, would be too prolix and
tedious, without being profitable; and most of the heretics so strenuously
exerted themselves to effect the total extinction of the Divine glory by
their gross reveries, that they thought it sufficient to unsettle and
disturb the inexperienced. From a few men there soon arose numerous sects,
of whom some would divide the Divine essence, and others would confound
the distinction which subsists between the Persons. But if we maintain,
what has already been sufficiently demonstrated from the Scripture, that
the essence of the one God, which pertains to the Father, to the Son, and
to the Spirit, is simple and undivided, and, on the other hand, that the
Father is, by some property, distinguished from the Son, and likewise the
Son from the Spirit, the gate will be shut, not only against Arius and
Sabellius, but also against all the other ancient heresiarchs. But since
our own times have witnessed some madmen, as Servetus and his followers,
who have involved every thing in new subtleties, a brief exposure of their
fallacies will not be unuseful. The word _Trinity_ was so odious and even
detestable to Servetus, that he asserted all Trinitarians, as he called
them, to be Atheists. I omit his impertinent and scurrilous language, but
this was the substance of his speculations: That it is representing God as
consisting of three parts, when three Persons are said to subsist in his
essence, and that this triad is merely imaginary, being repugnant to the
Divine unity. At the same time, he maintained the Persons to be certain
external ideas, which have no real subsistence in the Divine essence, but
give us a figurative representation of God, under this or the other form;
and that in the beginning there was no distinction in God, because the
Word was once the same as the Spirit; but that, after Christ appeared God
of God, there emanated from him another God, even the Spirit. Though he
sometimes glosses over his impertinencies with allegories, as when he
says, that the eternal Word of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and
the reflection of his image, and that the Spirit was a shadow of the
Deity, yet he afterwards destroys the Deity of both, asserting that,
according to the mode of dispensation, there is a part of God in both the
Son and the Spirit; just as the same Spirit, substantially diffused in us,
and even in wood and stones, is a portion of the Deity. What he broached
concerning the Person of the Mediator, we shall examine in the proper
place. But this monstrous fiction, that a Divine Person is nothing but a
visible appearance of the glory of God, will not need a prolix refutation.
For when John pronounces that the Word (Λογος) was God before the creation
of the world, he sufficiently discriminates him from an ideal form. But if
then also, and from the remotest eternity, that Word (Λογος) who was God,
was with the Father, and possessed his own glory with the Father, he
certainly could not be an external or figurative splendour; but it
necessarily follows, that he was a real hypostasis, subsisting in God
himself. But although no mention is made of the Spirit, but in the history
of the creation of the world, yet he is there introduced, not as a shadow,
but as the essential power of God, since Moses relates that the chaotic
mass was supported by him.(267) It then appeared, therefore, that the
eternal Spirit had always existed in the Deity, since he cherished and
sustained the confused matter of the heaven and earth, till it attained a
state of beauty and order. He certainly could not then be an image or
representation of God, according to the dreams of Servetus. But in other
places he is constrained to make a fuller disclosure of his impiety,
saying that God, in his eternal reason, decreeing for himself a visible
Son, has visibly exhibited himself in this manner; for if this be true,
there is no other Divinity left to Christ, than as he has been appointed a
Son by an eternal decree of God. Besides, he so transforms those
phantasms, which he substitutes instead of the hypostases, that he
hesitates not to imagine new accidents or properties in God. But the most
execrable blasphemy of all is, his promiscuous confusion of the Son of God
and the Spirit with all the creatures. For he asserts that in the Divine
essence there are parts and divisions, every portion of which is God; and
especially that the souls of the faithful are coëternal and consubstantial
with God; though in another place he assigns substantial Deity, not only
to the human soul, but to all created things.

XXIII. From the same corrupt source has proceeded another heresy, equally
monstrous. For some worthless men, to escape the odium and disgrace which
attended the impious tenets of Servetus, have confessed, indeed, that
there are three Persons, but with this explanation, that the Father, who
alone is truly and properly God, hath created the Son and Spirit, and
transfused his Deity into them. Nor do they refrain from this dreadful
manner of expressing themselves, that the Father is distinguished from the
Son and Spirit, as being the sole possessor of the Divine essence. Their
first plea in support of this notion is, that Christ is commonly called
the Son of God; whence they conclude that no other is properly God but the
Father. But they observe not, that although the name of God is common also
to the Son, yet that it is sometimes ascribed to the Father (κατ᾽ ἐξοχην)
by way of eminence, because he is the fountain and original of the Deity;
and this in order to denote the simple unity of the essence. They object,
that if he is truly the Son of God, it is absurd to account him the Son of
a Person. I reply, that both are true; that he is the Son of God, because
he is the Word begotten of the Father before time began, for we are not
yet speaking of the Person of the Mediator; and to be explicit, we must
notice the Person, that the name of God may not be understood absolutely,
but for the Father; for if we acknowledge no other to be God than the
Father, it will be a manifest degradation of the dignity of the Son.
Whenever mention is made of the Deity, therefore, there must no opposition
be admitted between the Father and the Son, as though the name of the true
God belonged exclusively to the Father. For surely the God who appeared to
Isaiah, was the only true God;(268) whom, nevertheless, John affirms to
have been Christ.(269) He likewise, who by the mouth of Isaiah declared
that he was to be a rock of offence to the Jews, was the only true
God;(270) whom Paul pronounces to have been Christ.(271) He who proclaims
by Isaiah, “As I live, every knee shall bow to me,”(272) is the only true
God; but Paul applies the same to Christ.(273) To the same purpose are the
testimonies recited by the Apostle—“Thou, Lord, hast laid the foundation
of the earth and the heavens;” and “Let all the angels of God worship
him.”(274) These ascriptions belong only to the one true God; whereas he
contends that they are properly applied to Christ. Nor is there any force
in that cavil, that what is proper to God is transferred to Christ,
because he is the brightness of his glory. For, since the name Jehovah is
used in each of these passages, it follows that in respect of his Deity he
is self‐existent. For, if he is Jehovah, he cannot be denied to be the
same God, who in another place proclaims by Isaiah, “I am the first and I
am the last; and beside me there is no God.”(275) That passage in Jeremiah
also deserves our attention—“The gods that have not made the heavens and
the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these
heavens;”(276) whilst, on the contrary, it must be acknowledged, that the
Deity of the Son of God is frequently proved by Isaiah from the creation
of the world. But how shall the Creator, who gives existence to all, not
be self‐existent, but derive his essence from another? For whoever asserts
that the Son owes his essence to the Father, denies him to be self‐
existent. But this is contradicted by the Holy Spirit, who gives him the
name of Jehovah. Now, if we admit the whole essence to be solely in the
Father, either it will be divisible, or it will be taken away from the
Son; and so, being despoiled of his essence, he will be only a titular
god. The Divine essence, according to these triflers, belongs solely to
the Father, inasmuch as he alone possesses it, and is the author of the
essence of the Son. Thus the Divinity of the Son will be a kind of
emanation from the essence of God, or a derivation of a part from the
whole. Now, they must of necessity concede, from their own premises, that
the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father only; because if he be a derivation
from the original essence, which belongs exclusively to the Father, he
cannot be accounted the Spirit of the Son; which is refuted by the
testimony of Paul, where he makes him common to Christ and the Father.
Besides, if the Person of the Father be expunged from the Trinity, wherein
will he differ from the Son and Spirit, but in being himself the sole
Deity? They confess that Christ is God, and yet differs from the Father.
Some distinctive character is necessary, also, to discriminate the Father
from the Son. They who place this in the essence, manifestly destroy the
true Deity of Christ, which cannot exist independently of the essence,
that is, of the entire essence. The Father certainly cannot differ from
the Son, unless he have something peculiar to himself, which is not common
to the Son. What will they find, by which to distinguish him? If the
difference be in the essence, let them tell us whether he has communicated
the same to the Son. But this could not be done partially; for it would be
an abomination to fabricate a demigod. Besides, this would miserably
dismember the Divine essence. The necessary conclusion then is, that it is
entirely and perfectly common to the Father and the Son. And if this be
true, there cannot, in respect of the essence, be any difference between
them. If it be objected that the Father, notwithstanding this
communication of his essence, remains the only God with whom the essence
continues, then Christ must be a figurative god, a god in appearance and
name only, not in reality; because nothing is more proper to God than to
be, according to that declaration, “I AM hath sent me unto you.”(277)

XXIV. We might readily prove from many passages the falsehood of their
assumption, that, whenever the name of God is mentioned absolutely in the
Scripture, it means only the Father. And in those places which they cite
in their own defence, they shamefully betray their ignorance, since the
Son is there added; from which it appears, that the name of God is used in
a relative sense, and therefore is particularly restricted to the Person
of the Father. Their objection, that, unless the Father alone were the
true God, he would himself be his own Father, is answered in a word. For
there is no absurdity in the name of God, for the sake of dignity and
order, being peculiarly given to him, who not only hath begotten of
himself his own wisdom, but is also the God of the Mediator, of which I
shall treat more at large in its proper place. For since Christ was
manifested in the flesh, he is called the Son of God, not only as he was
the eternal Word begotten of the Father before time began, but because he
assumed the person and office of a Mediator, to unite us to God. And since
they so presumptuously exclude the Son from Divine honours, I would wish
to be informed, when he declares that there is none good but the one
God,(278) whether he deprives himself of all goodness. I speak not of his
human nature, lest they should object, that, whatever goodness it had, it
was gratuitously conferred on it. I demand whether the eternal Word of God
be good or not. If they answer in the negative, they are sufficiently
convicted of impiety; and if in the affirmative, they cut the throat of
their own system. But though, at the first glance, Christ seems to deny
himself the appellation of good, he furnishes, notwithstanding, a further
confirmation of our opinion. For, as that is a title which peculiarly
belongs to the one God, forasmuch as he had been saluted as good, merely
according to a common custom, by his rejection of false honour, he
suggested that the goodness which he possessed was Divine. I demand, also,
when Paul affirms that God alone is immortal, wise, and true,(279) whether
he thereby degrades Christ to the rank of those who are mortal, unwise,
and false. Shall not he then be immortal who from the beginning was life
itself, and the giver of immortality to angels? Shall not he be wise who
is the eternal Wisdom of God? Shall not he be true who is truth itself? I
demand further, whether they think that Christ ought to be worshipped.
For, if he justly claims this as his right, that every knee should bow
before him,(280) it follows that he is that God, who, in the law,
prohibited the worship of any one but himself. If they will have this
passage in Isaiah, “I am, and there is no God besides me,” to be
understood solely of the Father, I retort this testimony on themselves;
since we see that whatever belongs to God is attributed to Christ. Nor is
there any room for their cavil, that Christ was exalted in the humanity in
which he had been abased; and that, with regard to his humanity, all power
was given to him in heaven and in earth; because, although the regal and
judicial majesty extends to the whole Person of the Mediator, yet, had he
not been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to
such an eminence, without God being in opposition to himself. And Paul
excellently determines this controversy, by informing us that he was equal
with God, before he abased himself under the form of a servant.(281) Now,
how could this equality subsist, unless he had been that God whose name is
JAH and JEHOVAH, who rides on the cherubim, whose kingdom is universal and
everlasting? No clamour of theirs can deprive Christ of another
declaration of Isaiah: “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for him;”(282)
since in these words he describes the advent of God the Redeemer, not only
for the deliverance of the people from exile in Babylon, but also for the
complete restoration of the church. Nor do they gain any thing by another
cavil, that Christ was God in his Father. For although we confess, in
point of order and degree, that the Father is the fountain of the Deity,
yet we pronounce it a detestable figment, that the essence belongs
exclusively to the Father, as though he were the author of the Deity of
the Son; because, on this supposition, either the essence would be
divided, or Christ would be only a titular and imaginary god. If they
admit that the Son is God, but inferior to the Father, then in him the
essence must be begotten and created, which in the Father is unbegotten
and uncreated. I know that some scorners ridicule our concluding a
distinction of Persons from the words of Moses, where he introduces God
thus speaking: “Let us make man in our image.”(283) Yet pious readers
perceive how frigidly and foolishly Moses would have introduced this
conference, if in one God there had not subsisted a plurality of Persons.
Now, it is certain that they whom the Father addressed, were uncreated;
but there is nothing uncreated, except the one God himself. Now,
therefore, unless they grant that the power to create, and the authority
to command, were common to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, it will
follow, that God did not speak thus within himself, but directed his
conversation to some exterior agents. Lastly, one place will easily remove
their two objections at once. For when Christ himself declares, that God
is a Spirit, it would be unreasonable to restrict this solely to the
Father, as though the Word were not also of a spiritual nature. But if the
name of Spirit is equally as applicable to the Son as to the Father, I
conclude that the Son is comprehended under the indefinite name of God.
Yet he immediately subjoins, that none are approved worshippers of the
Father, but those who worship him in spirit and in truth.(284) Whence
follows another consequence, that, because Christ performs the office of a
Teacher, in a station of inferiority, he ascribes the name of God to the
Father, not to destroy his own Deity, but by degrees to raise us to the
knowledge of it.

XXV. But they deceive themselves in dreaming of three separate
individuals, each of them possessing a part of the Divine essence. We
teach, according to the Scriptures, that there is essentially but one God;
and, therefore, that the essence of both the Son and the Spirit is
unbegotten. But since the Father is first in order, and hath of himself
begotten his wisdom, therefore, as has before been observed, he is justly
esteemed the original and fountain of the whole Divinity. Thus God,
indefinitely, is unbegotten; and the Father also is unbegotten with regard
to his Person. They even foolishly suppose, that our opinion implies a
quaternity; whereas they are guilty of falsehood and calumny, in ascribing
to us a figment of their own; as though we pretended that the three
Persons are as so many streams proceeding from one essence, when it is
evident, from our writings, that we separate not the Persons from the
essence, but, though they subsist in it, make a distinction between them.
If the persons were separated from the essence, there would perhaps be
some probability in their argument; but then there would be a trinity of
Gods, not a trinity of persons contained in one God. This solves their
frivolous question, whether the essence concurs to the formation of the
Trinity; as though we imagined three Gods to descend from it. Their
objection, that then the Trinity would be without God, is equally
impertinent. Because, though it concurs not to the distinction as a part
or member, yet the Persons are not independent of it, nor separate from
it; for the Father, unless he were God, could not be the Father; and the
Son is the Son only as he is God. Therefore we say, that the Deity is
absolutely self‐existent; whence we confess, also, that the Son, as God,
independently of the consideration of Person, is self‐existent; but as the
Son, we say, that he is of the Father. Thus his essence is unoriginated;
but the origin of his Person is God himself. And, indeed, the orthodox
writers, who have written on the Trinity, have referred this name only to
the Persons; since to comprehend the essence in that distinction, were not
only an absurd error, but a most gross impiety. For it is evident that
those who maintain that the Trinity consists in a union of the Essence,
the Son, and the Spirit, annihilate the essence of the Son and of the
Spirit; otherwise the parts would be destroyed by being confounded
together; which is a fault in every distinction. Finally, if the words
_Father_ and _God_ were synonymous—if the Father were the author of the
Deity—nothing would be left in the Son but a mere shadow; nor would the
Trinity be any other than a conjunction of the one God with two created
things.

XXVI. Their objection, that Christ, if he be properly God, is not rightly
called the Son of God, has already been answered; for when a comparison is
made between one Person and another, the word _God_ is not used
indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, as being the fountain of
the Deity, not with regard to the essence, as fanatics falsely pretend,
but in respect of order. This is the sense in which we ought to understand
that declaration of Christ to his Father: “This is life eternal, that they
might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent.”(285) For, speaking in the capacity of Mediator, he holds an
intermediate station between God and men; yet without any diminution of
his majesty. For, although he abased himself, yet he lost not his glory
with the Father, which was hidden from the world. Thus the Apostle to the
Hebrews,(286) though he acknowledges that Christ was made for a short time
inferior to the angels, yet, nevertheless, hesitates not to assert, that
he is the eternal God, who laid the foundation of the earth. We must
remember, therefore, that whenever Christ, in the capacity of Mediator,
addresses the Father, he comprehends, under the name of God, the Divinity
which belongs also to himself. Thus, when he said to his Apostles, “I go
unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I,”(287) he attributes not
to himself a secondary Divinity, as if he were inferior to the Father with
respect to the eternal essence, but because, having obtained the glory of
heaven, he gathers together the faithful to a participation of it with
him; he represents the Father to be in a station superior to himself, just
as the illustrious perfection of the splendour which appears in heaven
excels that degree of glory which was visible in him during his incarnate
state. For the same reason, Paul says, in another place, that Christ
“shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all
in all.”(288) Nothing would be more absurd than to deny perpetual duration
to the Deity of Christ. Now, if he will never cease to be the Son of God,
but will remain for ever the same as he has been from the beginning, it
follows, that by the name _Father_ is intended the one sole Divine
essence, which is common to them both. And it is certain that Christ
descended to us, in order that, exalting us to the Father, he might at the
same time exalt us to himself also, as being one with the Father. It is
therefore neither lawful nor right to restrict the name of God exclusively
to the Father, and to deny it to the Son. For even on this very account
John asserts him to be the true God,(289) that no one might suppose, that
he possessed only a secondary degree of Deity, inferior to the Father. And
I wonder what can be the meaning of these fabricators of new gods, when,
after confessing that Christ is the true God, they immediately exclude him
from the Deity of the Father; as though there could be any true God but
one alone, or as though a transfused Divinity were any thing but a novel
fiction.

XXVII. Their accumulation of numerous passages from Irenæus, where he
asserts the Father of Christ to be the only and eternal God of Israel, is
a proof either of shameful ignorance, or of consummate wickedness. For
they ought to have considered, that that holy man was then engaged in a
controversy with some madmen, who denied that the Father of Christ was the
same God that has spoken by Moses and the Prophets, but maintained that he
was I know not what sort of phantasm, produced from the corruption of the
world. His only object, therefore, is to show that no other God is
revealed in the Scripture than the Father of Christ, and that it is
impious to imagine any other; and therefore we need not wonder at his
frequently concluding, that there never was any other God of Israel than
he who was preached by Christ and his Apostles. So, now, on the other
hand, when a different error is to be opposed, we shall truly assert, that
the God who appeared formerly to the patriarchs, was no other than Christ.
If it be objected that it was the Father, we are prepared to reply, that,
while we contend for the Divinity of the Son, we by no means reject that
of the Father. If the reader attends to this design of Irenæus, all
contention will cease. Moreover, the whole controversy is easily decided
by the sixth chapter of the third book, where the good man insists on this
one point: That he who is absolutely and indefinitely called God in the
Scripture, is the only true God; but that the name of God is given
absolutely to Christ. Let us remember that the point at issue, as appears
from the whole treatise, and particularly from the forty‐sixth chapter of
the second book, was this: That the appellation of Father is not given in
an enigmatical and parabolical sense to one who is not truly God. Besides,
in another place he contends, that the Son is called God, as well as the
Father, by the Prophets and Apostles. He afterwards states how Christ, who
is Lord, and King, and God, and Judge of all, received power from him who
is God of all; and that is with relation to the subjection in which he was
humbled even to the death of the cross. And a little after he affirms,
that the Son is the Creator of heaven and earth, who gave the law by the
hand of Moses, and appeared to the patriarchs. Now, if any one pretends
that Irenæus acknowledges the Father alone as the God of Israel, I shall
reply, as is clearly maintained by the same writer, that Christ is one and
the same; as also he applies to him the prophecy of Habakkuk: “God shall
come from the south.” To the same purpose is what we find in the ninth
chapter of the fourth book: “Therefore Christ himself is, with the Father,
the God of the living.” And in the twelfth chapter of the same book he
states, that Abraham believed in God, inasmuch as Christ is the Creator of
heaven and earth, and the only God.

XXVIII. Their pretensions to the sanction of Tertullian are equally
unfounded, for, notwithstanding the occasional harshness and obscurity of
his mode of expression, yet he unequivocally teaches the substance of the
doctrine which we are defending; that is, that whereas there is one God,
yet by dispensation or economy there is his Word; that there is but one
God in the unity of the substance, but that the unity, by a mysterious
dispensation, is disposed into a trinity; that there are three, not in
condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but
in order. He says, indeed, that he maintains the Son to be second to the
Father; but he applies this only to the distinction of the Persons. He
says somewhere, that the Son is visible; but after having stated arguments
on both sides, he concludes that, as the Word, he is invisible. Lastly,
his assertion that the Father is designated by his Person, proves him to
be at the greatest distance from the notion which we are refuting. And
though he acknowledges no other God than the Father, yet the explanations
which he gives in the immediate context show that he speaks not to the
exclusion of the Son, when he denies the existence of any other God than
the Father; and that therefore the unity of Divine government is not
violated by the distinction of persons. And from the nature and design of
his argument it is easy to gather the meaning of his words. For he
contends, in opposition to Praxeas, that although God is distinguished
into three Persons, yet neither is there a plurality of gods, nor is the
unity divided. And because, according to the erroneous notion of Praxeas,
Christ could not be God, without being the Father, therefore Tertullian
bestows so much labour upon the distinction. His calling the Word and
Spirit a portion of the whole, though a harsh expression, yet is
excusable; since it has no reference to the substance, but only denotes
the disposition and economy, which belongs solely to the Persons,
according to the testimony of Tertullian himself. Hence also that
question, “How many Persons suppose you that there are, O most perverse
Praxeas, but as many as there are names?” So, a little after, “that they
may believe the Father and the Son, both in their names and Persons.”
These arguments, I conceive, will suffice to refute the impudence of those
who make use of the authority of Tertullian in order to deceive the minds
of the simple.

XXIX. And certainly, whoever will diligently compare the writings of the
fathers, will find in Irenæus nothing different from what was advanced by
others who succeeded him. Justin Martyr is one of the most ancient; and he
agrees with us in every point. They may object that the Father of Christ
is denominated the one God by him as well as by the rest. The same is
asserted also by Hilary, and even in harsher terms: he says, that eternity
is in the Father; but does this imply a denial of the Divine essence to
the Son? On the contrary, he had no other design than to maintain the same
faith which we hold. Nevertheless, they are not ashamed to cull out
mutilated passages, in order to induce a belief that he patronized their
error. If they wish any authority to be attached to their quotation of
Ignatius, let them prove that the Apostles delivered any law concerning
Lent, and similar corruptions; for nothing can be more absurd than the
impertinencies which have been published under the name of Ignatius.
Wherefore their impudence is more intolerable, who disguise themselves
under such false colours for the purpose of deception. Moreover, the
consent of antiquity manifestly appears from this circumstance, that in
the Nicene Council, Arius never dared to defend himself by the authority
of any approved writer; and not one of the Greek or Latin fathers, who
were there united against him, excused himself as at all dissenting from
his predecessors. With regard to Augustine, who experienced great
hostility from these disturbers, his diligent examination of all the
writings of the earlier fathers, and his respectful attention to them,
need not be mentioned. If he differs from them in the smallest
particulars, he assigns the reasons which oblige him to dissent from them.
On this argument also, if he finds any thing ambiguous or obscure in
others, he never conceals it. Yet he takes it for granted, that the
doctrine which those men oppose has been received without controversy from
the remotest antiquity; and yet that he was not uninformed of what others
had taught before him, appears even from one word in the first book of his
Treatise on the Christian Doctrine, where he says, that unity is in the
Father. Will they pretend that he had then forgotten himself? But he
elsewhere vindicates himself from this calumny, where he calls the Father
the fountain of the whole Deity, because he is from no other; wisely
considering that the name of God is especially ascribed to the Father,
because, unless the original be from him, it is impossible to conceive of
the simple unity of the Deity. These observations, I hope, will be
approved by the pious reader, as sufficient to refute all the calumnies,
with which Satan has hitherto laboured to pervert or obscure the purity of
this doctrine. Finally, I trust that the whole substance of this doctrine
has been faithfully stated and explained, provided my readers set bounds
to their curiosity, and are not unreasonably fond of tedious and intricate
controversies. For I have not the least expectation of giving satisfaction
to those who are pleased with an intemperance of speculation. I am sure I
have used no artifice in the omission of any thing, from a supposition
that it would make against me. But, studying the edification of the
Church, I have thought it better not to touch upon many things, which
would be unnecessarily burdensome to the reader, without yielding him any
profit. For to what purpose is it to dispute, whether the Father be always
begetting? For it is foolish to imagine a continual act of generation,
since it is evident that three Persons have subsisted in God from all
eternity.

Chapter XIV. The True God Clearly Distinguished In The Scripture From All
Fictitious Ones By The Creation Of The World.

Although Isaiah(290) brings a just accusation of stupidity against the
worshippers of fictitious deities, for not having learned, from the
foundations of the earth, and the circuit of the heavens, who was the true
God, yet such is the slowness and dulness of our minds, as to induce a
necessity for a more express exhibition of the true God, lest the faithful
should decline to the fictions of the heathen. For, since the most
tolerable description given by the philosophers, that God is the soul of
the world, is utterly vain and worthless, we require a more familiar
knowledge of him, to prevent us from wavering in perpetual uncertainty.
Therefore he hath been pleased to give us a history of the creation, on
which the faith of the Church might rest, without seeking after any other
God than him whom Moses has represented as the former and builder of the
world. The first thing specified in this history is the time, that by a
continued series of years the faithful might arrive at the first original
of the human race, and of all things. This knowledge is eminently useful,
not only to contradict the monstrous fables formerly received in Egypt and
other countries, but also to give us clearer views of the eternity of God,
and to fill us with greater admiration of it. Nor ought we to be moved
with that profane sneer, that it is marvellous that God did not form the
design of creating heaven and earth at an earlier period, but suffered an
immeasurable duration to pass away unemployed, since he could have made
them many thousands of ages before; whereas the continuance of the world,
now advancing to its last end, has not yet reached six thousand years. For
the reason why God deferred it so long, it would be neither lawful nor
expedient to inquire; because, if the human mind strive to penetrate it,
it will fail a hundred times in the attempt; nor, indeed, could there be
any utility in the knowledge of that which God himself, in order to prove
the modesty of our faith, has purposely concealed. Great shrewdness was
discovered by a certain pious old man, who, when some scoffer ludicrously
inquired what God had been doing before the creation of the world, replied
that he had been making hell for over curious men. This admonition, no
less grave than severe, should repress the wantonness which stimulates
many, and impels them to perverse and injurious speculations. Lastly, let
us remember that God, who is invisible, and whose wisdom, power, and
justice, are incomprehensible, has placed before us the history of Moses,
as a mirror which exhibits his lively image. For as eyes, either dim
through age, or dull through any disease, see nothing distinctly without
the assistance of spectacles, so, in our inquiries after God, such is our
imbecility, without the guidance of the Scripture we immediately lose our
way. But those who indulge their presumption, since they are now
admonished in vain, will perceive too late, by their horrible destruction,
how much better it would have been to look up to the secret counsels of
God with reverential awe, than to disgorge their blasphemies to darken the
heaven. Augustine justly complains, that it is an offence against God, to
inquire for any cause of things, higher than his will. He elsewhere
prudently cautions us, that it is as absurd to dispute concerning an
infinite duration of time, as concerning an infinite extent of place.
However extensive the circuit of the heavens, yet certainly it has some
dimensions. Now, if any one should expostulate with God, that the vacuity
of space is a hundred times larger, would not such arrogance be detested
by all pious persons? The same madness is chargeable on those who censure
the inaction of God, for not having, according to their wishes, created
the world innumerable ages before. To gratify their inordinate curiosity,
they desire to pass beyond the limits of the world; as though, in the very
ample circumference of heaven and earth, we were not surrounded by
numerous objects capable of absorbing all our senses in their inestimable
splendour; as though, in the course of six thousand years, God had not
given us lessons sufficient to exercise our minds in assiduous meditation
on them. Then let us cheerfully remain within these barriers with which
God has been pleased to circumscribe us, and as it were to confine our
minds, that they might not be wandering in the boundless regions of
uncertain conjecture.

II. To the same purpose is the narration of Moses, that the work of God
was completed, not in one moment, but in six days. For by this
circumstance also we are called away from all false deities to the only
true God, who distributed his work into six days, that it might not be
tedious to us to occupy the whole of life in the consideration of it. For
though, whithersoever we turn our eyes, they are constrained to behold the
works of God, yet we see how transient our attention is, and, if we are
touched with any pious reflections, how soon they leave us again. Here,
also, human reason murmurs, as though such progressive works were
inconsistent with the power of Deity; till, subdued to the obedience of
faith, it learns to observe that rest, to which the sanctification of the
seventh day invites us. Now, in the order of those things, we must
diligently consider the paternal love of God towards the human race, in
not creating Adam before he had enriched the earth with an abundant supply
of every thing conducive to his happiness. For had he placed him in the
earth while it remained barren and vacant, had he given him life before
there was any light, he would have appeared not very attentive to his
benefit. Now, when he has regulated the motions of the sun and the stars
for the service of man, replenished the earth, the air, and the waters,
with living creatures, and caused the earth to produce an abundance of all
kinds of fruits sufficient for sustenance, he acts the part of a provident
and sedulous father of a family, and displays his wonderful goodness
towards us. If the reader will more attentively consider with himself
these things, which I only hint at as I proceed, he will be convinced that
Moses was an authentic witness and herald of the one God, the Creator of
the world. I pass over what I have already stated, that he not only speaks
of the mere essence of God, but also exhibits to us his eternal Wisdom and
his Spirit, in order that we may not dream of any other God except him who
will be known in that express image.

III. But before I begin to enlarge on the nature of man, something must be
said concerning angels. Because, though Moses, in the history of the
creation, accommodating himself to the ignorance of the common people,
mentions no other works of God than such as are visible to our eyes, yet,
when he afterwards introduces angels as ministers of God, we may easily
conclude, that he is their Creator, whom they obey, and in whose service
they are employed. Though Moses, therefore, speaking in a popular manner,
does not, in the beginning of his writings, immediately enumerate the
angels among the creatures of God, yet nothing forbids our here making a
plain and explicit statement of those things which the Scripture teaches
in other places; because, if we desire to know God from his works, such an
excellent and noble specimen should by no means be omitted. Besides, this
point of doctrine is very necessary for the confutation of many errors.
The excellence of the angelic nature has so dazzled the minds of many,
that they have supposed them to be injured, if they were treated as mere
creatures, subject to the government of one God. Hence they were falsely
pretended to possess a kind of divinity. Manichæus has also arisen, with
the sect which he founded, who imagined to himself two original
principles, God and the devil; and attributed to God the origin of all
good things, but referred evil natures to the production of the devil. If
our minds were bewildered in this wild and incoherent system, we should
not leave God in full possession of his glory in the creation of the
world. For, since nothing is more peculiar to God than eternity and self‐
existence, does not the ascription of this to the devil dignify him with a
title of Divinity? Now, where is the omnipotence of God, if such an empire
be conceded to the devil, as that he can execute whatever he pleases,
notwithstanding the aversion of the Divine will, or opposition of the
Divine power? But the only foundation of the system of Manichæus, that it
is unlawful to ascribe to a good God the creation of any evil thing, in no
respect affects the orthodox faith, which admits not that any thing in the
universe is evil in its nature; since neither the depravity and wickedness
of men and devils, nor the sins which proceed from that source, are from
mere nature, but from a corruption of nature; nor from the beginning has
any thing existed, in which God has not given a specimen both of his
wisdom and of his justice. To oppose these perverse notions, it is
necessary to raise our minds higher than our eyes can reach. And it is
very probable that it was with this design, when, in the Nicene creed, God
is called the Creator of all things, that particular mention is made of
things invisible. Yet it shall be my study to observe the limit which the
rule of piety prescribes, lest, by indulging an unprofitable degree of
speculation, I should lead the reader astray from the simplicity of the
faith. And certainly, since the Spirit invariably teaches us in a
profitable manner, but, with regard to things of little importance to
edification, either is wholly silent, or but lightly and cursorily touches
on them,—it is also our duty cheerfully to remain in ignorance of what it
is not for our advantage to know.

IV. Since angels are ministers of God appointed to execute his
commands,(291) that they are also his creatures, ought to be admitted
without controversy. And does it not betray obstinacy rather than
diligence, to raise any contention concerning the time or the order in
which they were created? Moses narrates, that “the heavens and the earth
were finished, and all the host of them:”(292) to what purpose is it
anxiously to inquire, on what day, besides the stars and the planets, the
other more concealed hosts of heaven began to exist? Not to be too prolix,
let us remember on this point (as on the whole doctrine of religion) to
observe one rule of modesty and sobriety; which is, not to speak, or
think, or even desire to know, concerning obscure subjects, any thing
beyond the information given us in the Divine word. Another rule to be
followed is, in reading the Scripture, continually to direct our attention
to investigate and meditate upon things conducive to edification; not to
indulge curiosity or the study of things unprofitable. And, since the Lord
has been pleased to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid
piety, the fear of his name, true confidence, and the duties of holiness,
let us content ourselves with that knowledge. Wherefore, if we wish to be
truly wise, we must forsake the vain imaginations propagated by triflers
concerning the nature, orders, and multitude of angels. I know that these
things are embraced by many persons with greater avidity, and dwelt upon
with more pleasure, than such things as are in daily use. But, if it be
not irksome to be the disciples of Christ, it should not be irksome to
follow that method which he has prescribed. Then the consequence will be,
that, content with his discipline, we shall not only leave, but also
abhor, those unprofitable speculations from which he calls us away. No man
can deny that great subtlety and acuteness is discovered by Dionysius,
whoever he was, in many parts of his treatise on the Celestial Hierarchy;
but, if any one enters into a critical examination of it, he will find the
greatest part of it to be mere babbling. But the duty of a theologian is,
not to please the ear with empty sounds, but to confirm the conscience by
teaching things which are true, certain, and profitable. A reader of that
book would suppose that the author was a man descended from heaven, giving
an account of things that he had not learned from the information of
others, but had seen with his own eyes. But Paul, who was “caught up to
the third heaven,”(293) not only has told us no such things, but has even
declared, that it is not lawful for men to utter the secret things which
he had seen. Taking our leave, therefore, of this nugatory wisdom, let us
consider, from the simple doctrine of the Scripture, what the Lord has
been pleased for us to know concerning his angels.

V. We are frequently informed in the Scripture, that angels are celestial
spirits, whose ministry and service God uses for the execution of whatever
he has decreed; and hence this name is given to them, because God employs
them as messengers to manifest himself to men. Other appellations also, by
which they are distinguished, are derived from a similar cause. They are
called Hosts, because, as life‐guards, they surround their prince,
aggrandizing his majesty, and rendering it conspicuous; and, like
soldiers, are ever attentive to the signal of their leader; and are so
prepared for the performance of his commands, that he has no sooner
signified his will than they are ready for the work, or rather are
actually engaged in it. Such a representation of the throne of God is
exhibited in the magnificent descriptions of the Prophets, but
particularly of Daniel; where he says, when God had ascended the judgment‐
seat, that “thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times
ten thousand stood before him.”(294) Since by their means the Lord
wonderfully exerts and declares the power and strength of his hand, thence
they are denominated Powers.(295) Because by them he exercises and
administers his government in the world, therefore they are called
sometimes Principalities, sometimes Powers, sometimes Dominions. Lastly,
because the glory of God in some measure resides in them, they have also,
for this reason, the appellation of Thrones;(296) although on this last
name I would affirm nothing, because a different interpretation is equally
or even more suitable. But, omitting this name, the Holy Spirit often uses
the former ones, to magnify the dignity of the angelic ministry. Nor,
indeed, is it right that no honour should be paid to those instruments, by
whom God particularly exhibits the presence of his power. Moreover, they
are more than once called gods; because in their ministry, as in a mirror,
they give us an imperfect representation of Divinity. Though I am pleased
with the interpretation of the old writers, on those passages where the
Scripture records the appearance of an angel of God to Abraham, Jacob,
Moses, and others,(297) that Christ was that angel, yet frequently, where
mention is made of angels in general, this name is given to them. Nor
should this surprise us; for, if that honour be given to princes and
governors, because, in the performance of their functions, they are
vicegerents of God, the supreme King and Judge,(298) there is far greater
reason for its being paid to angels, in whom the splendour of the Divine
glory is far more abundantly displayed.

VI. But the Scripture principally insists on what might conduce most to
our consolation, and the confirmation of our faith—that the angels are the
dispensers and administrators of the Divine beneficence towards us; and
therefore it informs us, that they guard our safety, undertake our
defence, direct our ways, and exercise a constant solicitude that no evil
befall us. The declarations are universal, belonging primarily to Christ
the head of the Church, and then to all the faithful: “He shall give his
angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear
thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.”(299)
Again, “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him,
and delivereth them.”(300) In these passages God shows that he delegates
to his angels the protection of those whom he has undertaken to preserve.
Accordingly, the angel of the Lord consoles the fugitive Hagar, and
commands her to be reconciled to her mistress.(301) Abraham promises his
servant that an angel should be the guide of his journey.(302) Jacob, in
his benediction of Ephraim and Manasseh, prays that the angel of the Lord,
by whom he had been redeemed from all evil, would cause them to
prosper.(303) Thus an angel was appointed to protect the camp of the
Israelites;(304) and whenever it pleased God to deliver them from the
hands of their enemies, he raised up avengers by the ministry of
angels.(305) And finally, to supersede the necessity of adducing more
examples, angels ministered to Christ and attended him in all his
difficulties; they announced his resurrection to the women, and his
glorious advent to the disciples.(306) And thus, in the discharge of their
office as our protectors, they contend against the devil and all our
enemies, and execute the vengeance of God on those who molest us; as we
read that an angel of God, to deliver Jerusalem from a siege, slew a
hundred and eighty‐five thousand men in the camp of the king of Assyria in
one night.(307)

VII. But whether each of the faithful has a particular angel assigned him
for his defence, I cannot venture certainly to affirm. When Daniel
introduces the angel of the Persians and the angel of the Greeks,(308) he
clearly signifies that certain angels are appointed to preside over
kingdoms and provinces. Christ also, when he says that the angels of
children always behold the face of the Father,(309) suggests, that there
are certain angels who are charged with their safety. But I know not
whether this justifies the conclusion, that every one of them has his
particular guardian angel. Of this, indeed, we may be certain, that not
one angel only has the care of every one of us, but that they all with one
consent watch for our salvation. For it is said of all the angels
together, that they rejoice more over one sinner turned to repentance,
than over ninety and nine just persons who have persevered in their
righteousness.(310) Of more than one angel it is said, that they carried
the soul of Lazarus into the bosom of Abraham.(311) Nor is it in vain that
Elisha shows his servant so many fiery chariots, which were peculiarly
assigned to him for his protection.(312) There is one place which seems
clearer than the rest in confirmation of this point. For when Peter, on
his liberation from prison, knocked at the door of the house in which the
brethren were assembled, as they could not suppose it to be Peter himself,
they said it was his angel.(313) This conclusion seems to have arisen in
their minds from the common opinion that each of the faithful has his
guardian angel assigned him. But here it may also be replied, that nothing
prevents this being understood of any one of the angels, to whom the Lord
might have committed the care of Peter on that occasion, and who yet might
not be his perpetual guardian; as it is vulgarly imagined that every
person has two angels, a good one and a bad one, according to the heathen
notion of different genii. But it is not worth while anxiously to
investigate what it little concerns us to know. For if any one be not
satisfied with this, that all the orders of the celestial army watch for
his safety, I see not what advantage he can derive from knowing that he
has one particular angel given him for his guardian. But those who
restrict to one angel the care which God exercises over every one of us,
do a great injury to themselves, and to all the members of the Church; as
though those auxiliaries had been promised in vain, who, by surrounding
and defending us on all sides, contribute to increase our courage in the
conflict.

VIII. Let those, who venture to determine concerning the multitude and
orders of the angels, examine on what foundation their opinions rest.
Michael, I confess, is called in Daniel “the great prince,” and in Jude
“the archangel.”(314) And Paul informs us that it will be an archangel,
who, with the sound of a trumpet, shall summon men to judgment.(315) But
who, from these passages, can determine the degrees of honour among the
angels, distinguish the individuals by their respective titles, and assign
to every one his place and station? For the two names which are found in
the Scripture, Michael and Gabriel, and the third, if you wish to add it
from the history of Tobias,(316) may appear, from their significations, to
be given to angels on account of our infirmity; though I would rather
leave this undetermined. With respect to their numbers, we hear, from the
mouth of Christ, of many legions;(317) from Daniel, of many myriads:(318)
the servant of Elisha saw many chariots; and their being said to encamp
round about them that fear God,(319) is expressive of a great multitude.
It is certain that spirits have no form; and yet the Scripture, on account
of the slender capacity of our minds, under the names of cherubim and
seraphim, represents angels to us as having wings, to prevent our doubting
that they will always attend, with incredible celerity, to afford us
assistance as soon as our cases require it; as though the lightning darted
from heaven were to fly to us with its accustomed velocity. All further
inquiries on both these points, we should consider as belonging to that
class of mysteries, the full revelation of which is deferred to the last
day. Wherefore let us remember that we ought to avoid too much curiosity
of research, and presumption of language.

IX. But this, which is called in question by some restless men, must be
received as a certain truth, that angels are ministering spirits, whose
service God uses for the protection of his people, and by whom he
dispenses his benefits among mankind, and executes his other works. It was
the opinion of the ancient Sadducees, indeed, that the term _angels_
signified nothing but the motions which God inspires into men, or those
specimens which he gives of his power. But this foolish notion is
repugnant to so many testimonies of Scripture, that it is surprising how
such gross ignorance could have been tolerated among that people. For, to
omit the places before cited, where mention is made of thousands and
legions of angels; where joy is attributed to them; where they are said to
sustain the faithful in their hands, to carry their souls into rest, to
behold the face of the Father,(320) and the like,—there are others which
most clearly evince, that they are spirits possessing an actual existence
and their own peculiar nature. For the declarations of Stephen and
Paul,—that the law was given by the hand of angels,(321) and of Christ,
that the elect, after the resurrection, shall be like angels; that the day
of judgment is not known even to the angels; that he then will come with
his holy angels,(322)—however tortured, must necessarily be thus
understood. Likewise, when Paul charges Timothy, before Christ and the
elect angels, to keep his precepts,(323) he intends, not unsubstantial
qualities or inspirations, but real spirits. Nor otherwise is there any
meaning in what we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ is made
more excellent than the angels, that the world is not subject to them,
that Christ assumed not their nature, but the nature of man,(324) unless
we understand that there are happy spirits, to whom these comparisons may
apply. And the author of the same epistle explains himself, where he
places angels and the souls of the faithful together in the kingdom of
God.(325) Besides, we have already quoted, that the angels of children
always behold the face of God; that we are always defended by their
protection; that they rejoice for our safety; that they admire the
manifold grace of God in the church;(326) and are subject to Christ as
their head.(327) The same truth is proved by their having so often
appeared to the patriarchs in the form of men, conversed with them, and
been entertained by them. And Christ himself, on account of the
preëminence which he obtains in the capacity of Mediator, is called an
angel.(328) I have thought proper cursorily to touch on this point, in
order to fortify the simple against those foolish and absurd notions,
which were disseminated by Satan many ages ago, and are frequently
springing up afresh.

X. It remains for us to encounter the superstition, which generally
insinuates itself into men’s minds when angels are said to be the
ministers and dispensers of all our blessings. For human reason soon falls
into an opinion, that there is no honour that ought not to be paid to
them. Thus it happens that what belongs solely to God and Christ, is
transferred to them. Thus we see, that for some ages past the glory of
Christ has in many ways been obscured; while angels have been loaded with
extravagant honours without the authority of the word of God. And among
the errors which we combat in the present day, there is scarcely one more
ancient than this. For even Paul appears to have had a great controversy
with some, who exalted angels in such a manner as almost to degrade Christ
to an inferior station. Hence the solicitude with which he maintains, in
the Epistle to the Colossians, not only that Christ is to be esteemed
above angels, but also that he is the author of all blessings to
them,(329) in order that we may not forsake him and turn to them, who are
not even sufficient for themselves, but draw from the same fountain as we
do. Since the splendour of the Divine majesty, therefore, is eminently
displayed in them, there is nothing more natural than for us to fall down
with astonishment in adoration of them, and to attribute every thing to
them which exclusively belongs to God. Even John, in the Revelation,
confesses this to have happened to himself; but adds at the same time,
that he was thus answered: “See thou do it not: I am thy fellow‐servant:
worship God.”(330)

XI. But this danger we shall happily avoid, if we consider why God is
accustomed to provide for the safety of the faithful, and to communicate
the gifts of his beneficence by means of angels, rather than by himself to
manifest his own power without their intervention. He certainly does this
not from necessity, as though he were unable to do without them; for
whenever he pleases he passes them by, and performs his work with a mere
nod of his power; so far is he from being indebted to their assistance for
relieving him in any difficulty. This, therefore, conduces to the
consolation of our imbecility, that we may want nothing that can either
raise our minds to a good hope, or confirm them in security. This one
thing, indeed, ought to be more than sufficient for us, that the Lord
declares himself to be our Protector. But while we see ourselves
encompassed with so many dangers, so many annoyances, such various kinds
of enemies,—such is our weakness and frailty, that we may sometimes be
filled with terror, or fall into despair, unless the Lord enables us,
according to our capacity, to discover the presence of his grace. For this
reason he promises, not only that he will take care of us himself, but
also that we shall have innumerable life‐guards, to whom he has committed
the charge of our safety; and that, as long as we are surrounded by their
superintendence and protection, whatever danger may threaten, we are
placed beyond the utmost reach of evil. I confess, indeed, that it is
wrong for us, after that simple promise of the protection of God alone,
still to be looking around to see from what quarter our aid may come. But
since the Lord, from his infinite clemency and goodness, is pleased to
assist this our weakness, there is no reason why we should neglect this
great favour which he shows us. We have an example of this in the servant
of Elisha, who, when he saw that the mountain was besieged by an army of
Syrians,(331) and that no way of escape was left, was filled with
consternation, as though himself and his master had been ruined. Then
Elisha prayed that God would open his eyes, and he immediately saw the
mountain full of horses and chariots of fire; that is, of a multitude of
angels who were to guard him and the Prophet. Encouraged by this vision,
he came to himself again, and was able to look down with intrepidity on
the enemies, the sight of whom before had almost deprived him of life.

XII. Therefore, whatever is said concerning the ministry of angels, let us
direct it to this end, that, overcoming all diffidence, our hope in God
may be more firmly established. For the Lord has provided these guards for
us, that we may not be terrified by a multitude of enemies, as though they
could prevail in opposition to his assistance, but may have recourse to
the sentiment expressed by Elisha, “There are more for us than against
us.” How preposterous is it, then, that we should be alienated from God by
angels, who are appointed for this very purpose, to testify that his aid
is more especially present with us! But they do alienate us from him,
unless they lead us directly to him, to regard him, call on him, and
celebrate him as our only helper; unless they are considered by us as his
hands, which apply themselves to do nothing without his direction; unless
they attach us to Christ, the only Mediator, to depend entirely on him, to
lean upon him, to aspire to him, and to rest satisfied in him. For what is
described in the vision of Jacob(332) ought to be firmly fixed in our
minds, that the angels descend to the earth to men, and ascend from earth
to heaven, by a ladder above which stands the Lord of hosts. This implies,
that it is only through the intercession of Christ, that we are favoured
with the ministry of angels, as he himself affirms: “Hereafter ye shall
see heaven open, and the angels descending upon the Son of man.”(333)
Therefore the servant of Abraham, having been commended to the care of an
angel,(334) does not therefore invoke him for his aid, but, trusting to
that committal, pours out his prayers before the Lord, and entreats him to
display his mercy towards Abraham. For as God does not make them the
ministers of his power and goodness, in order to divide his glory with
them, so neither does he promise his assistance in their ministry, that we
may divide our confidence between them and him. Let us take our leave,
therefore, of that Platonic philosophy, which seeks access to God by means
of angels, and worships them in order to render him more propitious to us;
which superstitious and curious men have endeavoured from the beginning,
and even to this day persevere in attempting, to introduce into our
religion.

XIII. The design of almost every thing that the Scripture teaches
concerning devils, is that we may be careful to guard against their
insidious machinations, and may provide ourselves with such weapons as are
sufficiently firm and strong to repel the most powerful enemies. For when
Satan is called the god and prince of this world,(335) the strong man
armed,(336) the prince of the power of the air,(337) a roaring lion,(338)
these descriptions only tend to make us more cautious and vigilant, and
better prepared to encounter him. This is sometimes signified in express
words. For Peter, after having said that “the devil, as a roaring lion,
walketh about seeking whom he may devour,” immediately subjoins an
exhortation to “resist him, steadfast in the faith.” And Paul, having
suggested that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this
world, against spiritual wickedness,”(339) immediately commands us to put
on suitable armour for so great and so perilous a conflict. Wherefore,
having been previously warned that we are perpetually threatened by an
enemy, and an enemy desperately bold and extremely strong, skilled in
every artifice, indefatigable in diligence and celerity, abundantly
provided with all kinds of weapons, and most expert in the science of war,
let us make it the grand object of our attention, that we suffer not
ourselves to be oppressed with slothfulness and inactivity, but, on the
contrary, arousing and collecting all our courage, be ready for a vigorous
resistance; and as this warfare is terminated only by death, let us
encourage ourselves to perseverance. But, above all, conscious of weakness
and ignorance, let us implore the assistance of God, nor attempt any thing
but in reliance on him; since he alone can supply us with wisdom, and
strength, and courage, and armour.

XIV. But, the more to excite and urge us to such conduct, the Scripture
announces that there are not one, or two, or a few enemies, but great
armies who wage war against us. For even Mary Magdalene is said to have
been delivered from seven demons, by whom she was possessed;(340) and
Christ declares it to be a common case, that, if you leave the place open
for the re‐entrance of a demon who has once been ejected, he associates
with himself seven spirits more wicked still, and returns to his vacant
possession.(341) Indeed, one man is said to have been possessed by a whole
legion.(342) By these passages, therefore, we are taught, that we have to
contend with an infinite multitude of enemies; lest, despising their
paucity, we should be more remiss to encounter them, or, expecting
sometimes an intermission of hostility, should indulge ourselves in
idleness. But when one Satan or devil is frequently mentioned in the
singular number, it denotes that principality of wickedness which opposes
the kingdom of righteousness. For as the Church and society of saints have
Christ as their head, so the faction of the impious, and impiety itself,
are represented to us with their prince, who exercises the supreme power
among them; which is the meaning of that sentence, “Depart, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”(343)

XV. It also ought to stimulate us to a perpetual war with the devil, that
he is every where called God’s adversary and ours. For, if we feel the
concern which we ought to feel for the glory of God, we shall exert all
our power against him who attempts the extinction of it. If we are
animated by a becoming zeal for defending the kingdom of Christ, we must
necessarily have an irreconcilable war with him who conspires its ruin. On
the other hand, if we are solicitous for our salvation, we ought to make
neither peace nor truce with him who assiduously plots its destruction.
Now, such is the description given of him in the third chapter of Genesis,
where he seduces man from the obedience owed by him to God, so that he at
once robs God of his just honour, and precipitates man into ruin. Such,
also, is he described in the Evangelists, where he is called an enemy, and
said to sow tares in order to corrupt the seed of eternal life.(344) In
short, the testimony of Christ concerning him, that he was a murderer and
a liar from the beginning,(345) we find verified in all his actions. For
he opposes Divine truth with lies; obscures the light with shades of
darkness; involves the minds of men in errors; stirs up animosities, and
kindles contentions and wars;—and all for the purpose of subverting the
kingdom of God, and plunging mankind with himself into eternal
destruction. Whence it is evident, that he is naturally depraved, vicious,
malignant, and mischievous. For there must be extreme depravity in that
mind which is bent on opposing the glory of God and the salvation of men.
And this is suggested by John in his Epistle, when he says, that “he
sinneth from the beginning.” For he intends, that he is the author,
conductor, and principal contriver of all wickedness and iniquity.

XVI. But since the devil was created by God, we must remark, that this
wickedness which we attribute to his nature is not from creation, but from
corruption. For whatever evil quality he has, he has acquired by his
defection and fall. And of this the Scripture apprizes us; lest, believing
him to have come from God, just as he now is, we should ascribe to God
himself that which is in direct opposition to him. For this reason Christ
declares, that Satan, “when he speaketh a lie, speaketh of his own;”(346)
and adds the reason—“because he abode not in the truth.” When he says that
he abode not in the truth, he certainly implies that he had once been in
it; and when he calls him the father of a lie, he precludes his imputing
to God the depravity of his nature, which originated wholly from himself.
Though these things are delivered in a brief and rather obscure manner,
yet they are abundantly sufficient to vindicate the majesty of God from
every calumny. And what does it concern us to know, respecting devils,
either more particulars, or for any other purpose? Some persons are
displeased that the Scripture does not give us, in various places, a
distinct and detailed account of their fall, with its cause, manner, time,
and nature. But, these things being nothing to us, it was better for them,
if not to be passed over in total silence, yet certainly to be touched on
but lightly; because it would ill comport with the dignity of the Holy
Spirit to feed curiosity with vain and unprofitable histories; and we
perceive it to have been the design of the Lord, to deliver nothing in his
sacred oracles, which we might not learn to our edification. That we
ourselves, therefore, may not dwell upon unprofitable subjects, let us be
content with this concise information respecting the nature of devils;
that at their creation they were originally angels of God, but by
degenerating have ruined themselves, and become the instruments of
perdition to others. This being useful to be known, it is clearly stated
by Peter and Jude. “God,” say they, “spared not the angels that sinned,
and kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.”(347) And
Paul, mentioning the elect angels,(348) without doubt tacitly implies that
there are reprobate ones.

XVII. The discord and contention, which we say Satan maintains against
God, ought to be understood in a manner consistent with a firm persuasion,
that he can do nothing without God’s will and consent. For we read in the
history of Job, that he presented himself before God to receive his
commands, and dared not to undertake any enterprise without having
obtained his permission.(349) Thus, also, when Ahab was to be deceived, he
undertook to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets; and,
being commissioned by God, he performed it.(350) For this reason he is
also called the “evil spirit from the Lord,” who tormented Saul,(351)
because he was employed as a scourge to punish the sins of that impious
monarch. And elsewhere it is recorded, that the plagues were inflicted on
the Egyptians by the “evil angels.”(352) According to these particular
examples, Paul declares generally, that the blinding of unbelievers is the
work of God,(353) whereas he had before called it the operation of Satan.
It appears, then, that Satan is subject to the power of God, and so
governed by his control, that he is compelled to render obedience to him.
Now, when we say that Satan resists God, and that his works are contrary
to the works of God, we at the same time assert that this repugnance and
contention depend on the Divine permission. I speak now, not of the will
or the endeavour, but only of the effect. For the devil, being naturally
wicked, has not the least inclination towards obedience to the Divine
will, but is wholly bent on insolence and rebellion. It therefore arises
from himself and his wickedness, that he opposes God with all his desires
and purposes. This depravity stimulates him to attempt those things which
he thinks the most opposed to God. But since God holds him tied and bound
with the bridle of his power, he executes only those things which are
divinely permitted; and thus, whether he will or not, he obeys his
Creator, being constrained to fulfil any service to which he impels him.

XVIII. While God directs the courses of unclean spirits hither and thither
at his pleasure, he regulates this government in such a manner, that they
exercise the faithful with fighting, attack them in ambuscades, harass
them with incursions, push them in battles, and frequently fatigue them,
throw them into confusion, terrify them, and sometimes wound them, yet
never conquer or overwhelm them; but subdue and lead captive the impious,
tyrannize over their souls and bodies, and abuse them like slaves by
employing them in the perpetration of every enormity. The faithful, in
consequence of being harassed by such enemies, are addressed with the
following, and other similar exhortations: “Give not place to the
devil.”(354) “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about,
seeking whom he may devour; whom resist, steadfast in the faith.”(355)
Paul confesses that he himself was not free from this kind of warfare,
when he declares that, as a remedy to subdue pride, “the messenger of
Satan was given to him to buffet him.”(356) This exercise, then, is common
to all the children of God. But, as the promise respecting the breaking of
the head of Satan(357) belongs to Christ and all his members in common, I
therefore deny that the faithful can ever be conquered or overwhelmed by
him. They are frequently filled with consternation, but recover themselves
again; they fall by the violence of his blows, but are raised up again;
they are wounded, but not mortally; finally, they labour through their
whole lives in such a manner, as at last to obtain the victory. This,
however, is not to be restricted to each single action. For we know that,
by the righteous vengeance of God, David was for a time delivered to
Satan, that by his instigation he might number the people;(358) nor is it
without reason that Paul admits a hope of pardon even for those who may
have been entangled in the snares of the devil.(359) Therefore the same
Apostle shows, in another place, that the promise before cited is begun in
this life, where we must engage in the conflict; and that after the
termination of the conflict it will be completed. “And the God of peace,”
he says, “shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.”(360) In our Head
this victory, indeed, has always been complete, because the prince of this
world had nothing in him:(361) in us, who are his members, it yet appears
only in part, but will be completed when we shall have put off our flesh,
which makes us still subject to infirmities, and shall be full of the
power of the Holy Spirit. In this manner, when the kingdom of Christ is
erected, Satan and his power must fall; as the Lord himself says, “I
beheld Satan as lightning falling from heaven.”(362) For by this answer he
confirms what the Apostles had reported concerning the power of his
preaching. Again: “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods
are in peace; but when a stronger than he shall come upon him and overcome
him,” &c.(363) And to this end Christ by his death overcame Satan, who had
the power of death, and triumphed over all his forces, that they might not
be able to hurt the Church; for otherwise it would be in hourly danger of
destruction. For such is our imbecility, and such the strength of his
fury, how could we stand even for a moment against his various and
unceasing attacks, without being supported by the victory of our Captain?
Therefore God permits not Satan to exercise any power over the souls of
the faithful, but abandons to his government only the impious and
unbelieving, whom he designs not to number among his own flock. For he is
said to have the undisturbed possession of this world, till he is expelled
by Christ.(364) He is said also to blind all who believe not the
Gospel,(365) and to work in the children of disobedience;(366) and this
justly, for all the impious are vessels of wrath.(367) To whom, therefore,
should they be subjected, but to the minister of the Divine vengeance?
Finally, they are said to be of their father the devil;(368) because, as
the faithful are known to be the children of God from their bearing his
image,(369) so the impious, from the image of Satan into which they have
degenerated, are properly considered as his children.

XIX. But as we have already confuted that nugatory philosophy concerning
the holy angels, which teaches that they are nothing but inspirations, or
good motions, excited by God in the minds of men, so in this place we must
refute those who pretend that devils are nothing but evil affections or
perturbations, which our flesh obtrudes on our minds. But this may be
easily done, and that because the testimonies of Scripture on this subject
are numerous and clear. First, when they are called unclean spirits and
apostate angels,(370) who have degenerated from their original condition,
the very names sufficiently express, not mental emotions or affections,
but rather in reality what are called minds, or spirits endued with
perception and intelligence. Likewise, when the children of God are
compared with the children of the devil, both by Christ and by John,(371)
would not the comparison be absurd, if nothing were intended by the word
_devil_ but evil inspirations? And John adds something still plainer, that
the devil sins from the beginning. Likewise, when Jude introduces Michael
the archangel contending with the devil,(372) he certainly opposes to the
good angel an evil and rebellious one; to which agrees what is recorded in
the history of Job, that Satan appeared with the holy angels before
God.(373) But the clearest of all are those passages, which mention the
punishment which they begin to feel from the judgment of God, and are to
feel much more at the resurrection: “Thou Son of God, art thou come hither
to torment us before the time?”(374) Also, “Depart, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”(375) Again, “If
God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment,”
&c.(376) How unmeaning were these expressions, that the devils are
appointed to eternal judgment; that fire is prepared for them; that they
are now tormented and vexed by the glory of Christ, if there were no
devils at all! But since this point is not a subject of dispute with those
who give credit to the word of the Lord, but with those vain speculators
who are pleased with nothing but novelty, little good can be effected by
testimonies of Scripture. I consider myself as having done what I
intended, which was to fortify the pious mind against such a species of
errors, with which restless men disturb themselves and others that are
more simple. But it was requisite to touch on it, lest any persons
involved in that error, under a supposition that they have no adversary,
should become more slothful and incautious to resist him.

XX. Yet let us not disdain to receive a pious delight from the works of
God, which every where present themselves to view in this very beautiful
theatre of the world. For this, as I have elsewhere observed, though not
the principal, is yet, in the order of nature, the first lesson of faith,
to remember that, whithersoever we turn our eyes, all the things which we
behold are the works of God; and at the same time to consider, with pious
meditation, for what end God created them. Therefore to apprehend, by a
true faith, what it is for our benefit to know concerning God, we must
first of all understand the history of the creation of the world, as it is
briefly related by Moses, and afterwards more copiously illustrated by
holy men, particularly by Basil and Ambrose. Thence we shall learn that
God, by the power of his Word and Spirit, created out of nothing the
heaven and the earth; that from them he produced all things, animate and
inanimate; distinguished by an admirable gradation the innumerable variety
of things; to every species gave its proper nature, assigned its offices,
and appointed its places and stations; and since all things are subject to
corruption, has, nevertheless, provided for the preservation of every
species till the last day; that he therefore nourishes some by methods
concealed from us, from time to time infusing, as it were, new vigour into
them; that on some he has conferred the power of propagation, in order
that the whole species may not be extinct at their death; that he has thus
wonderfully adorned heaven and earth with the utmost possible abundance,
variety, and beauty, like a large and splendid mansion, most exquisitely
and copiously furnished; lastly, that, by creating man, and distinguishing
him with such splendid beauty, and with such numerous and great
privileges, he has exhibited in him a most excellent specimen of all his
works. But since it is not my design to treat at large of the creation of
the world, let it suffice to have again dropped these few hints by the
way. For it is better, as I have just advised the reader, to seek for
fuller information on this subject from Moses, and others who have
faithfully and diligently recorded the history of the world.

XXI. It is useless to enter into a prolix disputation respecting the right
tendency and legitimate design of a consideration of the works of God,
since this question has been, in a great measure, determined in another
place, and, as much as concerns our present purpose, may be despatched in
few words. Indeed, if we wished to explain how the inestimable wisdom,
power, justice, and goodness, of God are manifested in the formation of
the world, no splendour or ornament of diction will equal the magnitude of
so great a subject. And it is undoubtedly the will of the Lord, that we
should be continually employed in this holy meditation; that, while we
contemplate in all the creatures, as in so many mirrors, the infinite
riches of his wisdom, justice, goodness, and power, we might not only take
a transient and cursory view of them, but might long dwell on the idea,
seriously and faithfully revolve it in our minds, and frequently recall it
to our memory. But, this being a didactic treatise, we must omit those
topics which require long declamations. To be brief, therefore, let the
readers know, that they have then truly apprehended by faith what is meant
by God being the Creator of heaven and earth, if they, in the first place,
follow this universal rule, not to pass over, with ungrateful inattention
or oblivion, those glorious perfections which God manifests in his
creatures; and, secondly, learn to make such an application to themselves
as thoroughly to affect their hearts. The first point is exemplified, when
we consider how great must have been the Artist who disposed that
multitude of stars, which adorn the heaven, in such a regular order, that
it is impossible to imagine any thing more beautiful to behold; who fixed
some in their stations, so that they cannot be moved; who granted to
others a freer course, but so that they never travel beyond their
appointed limits; who so regulates the motions of all, that they measure
days and nights, months, years, and seasons of the year; and also reduces
the inequality of days, which we constantly witness, to such a medium that
it occasions no confusion. So, also, when we observe his power in
sustaining so great a mass, in governing the rapid revolutions of the
celestial machine, and the like. For these few examples sufficiently
declare, what it is to recognize the perfections of God in the creation of
the world. Otherwise, were I desirous of pursuing the subject to its full
extent, there would be no end; since there are as many miracles of Divine
power, as many monuments of Divine goodness, as many proofs of Divine
wisdom, as there are species of things in the world, and even as there are
individual things, either great or small.

XXII. There remains the other point, which approaches more nearly to
faith; that, while we observe how God has appointed all things for our
benefit and safety, and at the same time perceive his power and grace in
ourselves, and the great benefits which he has conferred on us, we may
thence excite ourselves to confide in him, to invoke him, to praise him,
and to love him. Now, as I have just before suggested, God himself has
demonstrated, by the very order of creation, that he made all things for
the sake of man. For it was not without reason that he distributed the
making of the world into six days; though it would have been no more
difficult for him to complete the whole work, in all its parts, at once,
in a single moment, than to arrive at its completion by such progressive
advances. But in this he has been pleased to display his providence and
paternal solicitude towards us, since, before he would make man, he
prepared every thing which he foresaw would be useful or beneficial to
him. How great would be, now, the ingratitude to doubt whether we are
regarded by this best of fathers, whom we perceive to have been solicitous
on our account before we existed! How impious would it be to tremble with
diffidence, lest at any time his benignity should desert us in our
necessities, which we see was displayed in the greatest affluence of all
blessings provided for us while we were yet unborn! Besides, we are told
by Moses,(377) that his liberality has subjected to us all that is
contained in the whole world. He certainly has not made this declaration
in order to tantalize us with the empty name of such a donation. Therefore
we never shall be destitute of any thing which will conduce to our
welfare. Finally, to conclude, whenever we call God the Creator of heaven
and earth, let us at the same time reflect, that the dispensation of all
those things which he has made is in his own power, and that we are his
children, whom he has received into his charge and custody, to be
supported and educated; so that we may expect every blessing from him
alone, and cherish a certain hope that he will never suffer us to want
those things which are necessary to our well‐being, that our hope may
depend on no other; that, whatever we need or desire, our prayers may be
directed to him, and that, from whatever quarter we receive any advantage,
we may acknowledge it to be his benefit, and confess it with thanksgiving;
that, being allured with such great sweetness of goodness and beneficence,
we may study to love and worship him with all our hearts.

Chapter XV. The State Of Man At His Creation, The Faculties Of The Soul,
The Divine Image, Free Will, And The Original Purity Of His Nature.

We must now treat of the creation of man, not only because he exhibits the
most noble and remarkable specimen of the Divine justice, wisdom, and
goodness, among all the works of God, but because, as we observed in the
beginning, we cannot attain to a clear and solid knowledge of God, without
a mutual acquaintance with ourselves. But though this is twofold,—the
knowledge of the condition in which we were originally created, and of
that into which we entered after the fall of Adam, (for indeed we should
derive but little advantage from a knowledge of our creation, unless in
the lamentable ruin which has befallen us we discovered the corruption and
deformity of our nature,)—yet we shall content ourselves at present with a
description of human nature in its primitive integrity. And, indeed,
before we proceed to the miserable condition in which man is now involved,
it is necessary to understand the state in which he was first created. For
we must beware lest, in precisely pointing out the natural evils of man,
we seem to refer them to the Author of nature; since impious men suppose
that this pretext affords them a sufficient defence, if they can plead
that whatever defect or fault they have, proceeds in some measure from
God; nor do they hesitate, if reproved, to litigate with God himself, and
transfer to him the crime of which they are justly accused. And those who
would be thought to speak with more reverence concerning the Deity, yet
readily endeavour to excuse their depravity from nature, not considering
that they also, though in a more obscure manner, are guilty of defaming
the character of God; to whose dishonour it would redound, if nature could
be proved to have had any innate depravity at its formation. Since we see
the flesh, therefore, eagerly catching at every subterfuge, by which it
supposes that the blame of its evils may by any means be transferred from
itself to any other, we must diligently oppose this perverseness. The
calamity of mankind must be treated in such a manner as to preclude all
tergiversation, and to vindicate the Divine justice from every accusation.
We shall afterwards, in the proper place, see how far men are fallen from
that purity which was bestowed upon Adam. And first let it be understood,
that, by his being made of earth and clay, a restraint was laid upon
pride; since nothing is more absurd than for creatures to glory in their
excellence, who not only inhabit a cottage of clay, but who are themselves
composed partly of dust and ashes.(378) But as God not only deigned to
animate the earthen vessel, but chose to make it the residence of an
immortal spirit, Adam might justly glory in so great an instance of the
liberality of his Maker.

II. That man consists of soul and body, ought not to be controverted. By
the “soul” I understand an immortal, yet created essence, which is the
nobler part of him. Sometimes it is called a “spirit;” for though, when
these names are connected, they have a different signification, yet when
“spirit” is used separately, it means the same as “soul;” as when Solomon,
speaking of death, says that “then the spirit shall return unto God, who
gave it.”(379) And Christ commending his spirit to the Father,(380) and
Stephen his to Christ,(381) intend no other than that, when the soul is
liberated from the prison of the flesh, God is its perpetual keeper. Those
who imagine that the soul is called a spirit, because it is a breath or
faculty divinely infused into the body, but destitute of any essence, are
proved to be in a gross error by the thing itself, and by the whole tenor
of Scripture. It is true, indeed, that, while men are immoderately
attached to the earth, they become stupid, and, being alienated from the
Father of lights, are immersed in darkness, so that they consider not that
they shall survive after death; yet in the mean time, the light is not so
entirely extinguished by the darkness, but that they are affected with
some sense of their immortality. Surely the conscience, which, discerning
between good and evil, answers to the judgment of God, is an indubitable
proof of an immortal spirit. For how could an affection or emotion,
without any essence, penetrate to the tribunal of God, and inspire itself
with terror on account of its guilt? For the body is not affected by a
fear of spiritual punishment; that falls only on the soul; whence it
follows, that it is possessed of an essence. Now, the very knowledge of
God sufficiently proves the immortality of the soul, which rises above the
world, since an evanescent breath or inspiration could not arrive at the
fountain of life. Lastly, the many noble faculties with which the human
mind is adorned, and which loudly proclaim that something Divine is
inscribed on it, are so many testimonies of its immortal essence. For the
sense which the brutes have, extends not beyond the body, or at most not
beyond the objects near it. But the agility of the human mind, looking
through heaven and earth, and the secrets of nature, and comprehending in
its intellect and memory all ages, digesting every thing in proper order,
and concluding future events from those which are past, clearly
demonstrates that there is concealed within man something distinct from
the body. In our minds we form conceptions of the invisible God and of
angels, to which the body is not at all competent. We apprehend what is
right, just, and honest, which is concealed from the corporeal senses. The
spirit, therefore, must be the seat of this intelligence. Even sleep
itself, which, stupefying man, seems to divest him even of life, is no
obscure proof of immortality; since it not only suggests to us ideas of
things which never happened, but also presages of future events. I briefly
touch those things which even profane writers magnificently extol in a
more splendid and ornamented diction; but with the pious reader the simple
mention of them will be sufficient. Now, unless the soul were something
essentially distinct from the body, the Scripture would not inform us that
we dwell in houses of clay,(382) and at death quit the tabernacle of the
flesh;(383) that we put off the corruptible,(384) to receive a reward at
the last day, according to the respective conduct of each individual in
the body.(385) For certainly these and similar passages, which often
occur, not only manifestly distinguish the soul from the body, but, by
transferring to it the name of “man,” indicate that it is the principal
part of our nature. When Paul exhorts the faithful to cleanse themselves
from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit,(386) he points out two
parts in which the defilement of sin resides. Peter also, when he called
Christ the Shepherd and Bishop of souls,(387) would have spoken
improperly, if there were no souls over whom he could exercise that
office. Nor would there be any consistency in what he says concerning the
eternal salvation of souls, or in his injunction to purify the souls, or
in his assertion that fleshly lusts war against the soul,(388) or in what
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that pastors watch to give
an account of our souls,(389) unless souls had a proper essence. To the
same purpose is the place where Paul “calls God for a record upon his
soul,”(390) because it could not be amenable to God, if it were not
capable of punishment; which is also more clearly expressed in the words
of Christ, where he commands us to fear him, who, after having killed the
body, is able to cast the soul into hell.(391) Where the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes between the fathers of our flesh, and
God, who is the only Father of spirits,(392) he could not assert the
essence or existence of the soul in more express terms. Besides, unless
the soul survived after its liberation from the prison of the body, it was
absurd for Christ to represent the soul of Lazarus as enjoying happiness
in the bosom of Abraham, and the soul of the rich man as condemned to
dreadful torments.(393) Paul confirms the same point, by informing us that
we are absent from God as long as we dwell in the body, but that when
absent from the body we are present with the Lord.(394) Not to be too
prolix on a subject of so little obscurity, I shall only add this from
Luke, that it is reckoned among the errors of the Sadducees, that they
believed not the existence of angels or of spirits.(395)

III. A solid proof of this point may also be gathered from man being said
to be created in the image of God.(396) For though the glory of God is
displayed in his external form, yet there is no doubt that the proper seat
of his image is in the soul. I admit that external form, as it
distinguishes us from brutes, also exalts us more nearly to God; nor will
I too vehemently contend with any one who would understand, by the image
of God, that

“—— while the mute creation downward bend
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes
Beholds his own hereditary skies.”(397)

Only let it be decided that the image of God, which appears or sparkles in
these external characters, is spiritual. For Osiander, whose perverse
ingenuity in futile notions is proved by his writings, extending the image
of God promiscuously to the body as well as to the soul, confounds heaven
and earth together. He says, that the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit,
fixed their image in man, because, even if Adam had remained in his
integrity, Christ would, nevertheless, have become man. Thus, according to
him, the body which had been destined for Christ was the exemplar and type
of that corporeal figure which was then formed. But where will he find
that Christ is the image of the Spirit? I grant, indeed, that the glory of
the whole Deity shines in the person of the Mediator; but how shall the
eternal Word be called the image of the Spirit, whom he precedes in order?
Lastly, it subverts the distinction between the Son and Spirit, if the
former be denominated the image of the latter. Besides, I could wish to be
informed by him, how Christ, in the body which he has assumed, resembles
the Spirit, and by what characters or lineaments his similitude is
expressed. And since that speech, “Let us make man in our own image,”(398)
belongs also to the person of the Son, it follows that he is the image of
himself; which is altogether repugnant to reason. Moreover, if the notion
of Osiander be received, man was formed only to the type or exemplar of
the humanity of Christ; and the idea from which Adam was taken was Christ,
as about to be clothed in flesh; whereas the Scripture teaches, in a very
different sense, that man was “created in the image of God.” There is more
plausibility in the subtlety of those who maintain that Adam was created
in the image of God, because he was conformed to Christ, who is the only
image of God. But this also is destitute of solidity. There is no small
controversy concerning “image” and “likeness” among expositors who seek
for a difference, whereas in reality there is none, between the two words;
“likeness” being only added by way of explanation. In the first place, we
know that it is the custom of the Hebrews to use repetitions, in which
they express one thing twice. In the next place, as to the thing itself,
there is no doubt but man is called the image of God, on account of his
likeness to God. Hence it appears that those persons make themselves
ridiculous who display more subtlety in criticising on these terms,
whether they confine _zelem_, that is, “image,” to the substance of the
soul, and _demuth_, that is, “likeness,” to its qualities, or whether they
bring forward any different interpretation. Because, when God determined
to create man in his own image, that expression being rather obscure, he
repeats the same idea in this explanatory phrase, “after our likeness;” as
though he had said that he was about to make man, in whom, as in an image,
he would give a representation of himself by the characters of resemblance
which he would impress upon him. Therefore Moses, a little after, reciting
the same thing, introduces the image of God, but makes no mention of his
likeness. The objection of Osiander is quite frivolous, that it is not a
part of man, or the soul with its faculties, that is called the image of
God, but the whole Adam, who received his name from the earth whence he
was taken; it will be deemed frivolous, I say, by every rational reader.
For when the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore made
subject to death; nor, on the other hand, when man is called a rational
animal, does reason or intelligence therefore belong to the body. Though
the soul, therefore, is not the whole man, yet there is no absurdity in
calling him the image of God with relation to the soul; although I retain
the principle which I have just laid down, that the image of God includes
all the excellence in which the nature of man surpasses all the other
species of animals. This term, therefore, denotes the integrity which Adam
possessed, when he was endued with a right understanding, when he had
affections regulated by reason, and all his senses governed in proper
order, and when, in the excellency of his nature, he truly resembled the
excellence of his Creator. And though the principal seat of the Divine
image was in the mind and heart, or in the soul and its faculties, yet
there was no part of man, not even the body, which was not adorned with
some rays of its glory. It is certain that the lineaments of the Divine
glory are conspicuous in every part of the world; whence it may be
concluded, that where the image of God is said to be in man, there is
implied a tacit antithesis, which exalts man above all the other
creatures, and as it were separates him from the vulgar herd. It is not to
be denied that angels were created in the similitude of God, since our
highest perfection will consist, according to the declaration of Christ,
in being like them.(399) But it is not in vain that Moses celebrates the
favour of God towards us by this peculiar title; especially as he compares
man only to visible creatures.

IV. No complete definition of this image, however, appears yet to be
given, unless it be more clearly specified in what faculties man excels,
and in what respects he ought to be accounted a mirror of the Divine
glory. But that cannot be better known from any thing, than from the
reparation of his corrupted nature. There is no doubt that Adam, when he
fell from his dignity, was by this defection alienated from God.
Wherefore, although we allow that the Divine image was not utterly
annihilated and effaced in him, yet it was so corrupted that whatever
remains is but horrible deformity. And therefore the beginning of our
recovery and salvation is the restoration which we obtain through Christ,
who on this account is called the second Adam; because he restores us to
true and perfect integrity. For although Paul, opposing the quickening
Spirit received by the faithful from Christ, to the living soul in which
Adam was created,(400) celebrates the degree of grace displayed in
regeneration as superior to that manifested in creation, yet he
contradicts not that other capital point, that this is the end of
regeneration, that Christ may form us anew in the image of God. Therefore
he elsewhere informs us, that “the new man is renewed in knowledge after
the image of him that created him.”(401) With which corresponds the
following exhortation—“Put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness.”(402) Now, we may see what Paul
comprehends in this renovation. In the first place, he mentions knowledge,
and in the next place, sincere righteousness and holiness; whence we
infer, that in the beginning the image of God was conspicuous in the light
of the mind, in the rectitude of the heart, and in the soundness of all
the parts of our nature. For though I grant that the forms of expression
are synecdochical, signifying the whole by a part, yet this is an axiom
which cannot be overturned, that what holds the principal place in the
renovation of the Divine image, must also have held the same place in the
creation of it at first. To the same purpose is another passage of the
Apostle, that “we, with open face beholding the glory of Christ, are
changed into the same image.”(403) We see, now, how Christ is the most
perfect image of God, to which being conformed, we are so restored that we
bear the Divine image in true piety, righteousness, purity, and
understanding. This position being established, the imagination of
Osiander, about the figure of the body, immediately vanishes of itself.
The passage where Paul calls the man “the image and glory of God,”(404) to
the exclusion of the woman from that degree of honour, appears from the
context to be confined to political subordination. But that the image
which has been mentioned comprehended whatever relates to spiritual and
eternal life, has now, I think, been sufficiently proved. John confirms
the same in other words, by asserting that “the life” which was from the
beginning in the eternal Word of God, “was the light of men.”(405) For as
he intended to praise the singular favour of God which exalts man above
all the other animals; to separate him from the common number, because he
has attained no vulgar life, but a life connected with the light of
intelligence and reason,—he at the same time shows how he was made after
the image of God. Therefore, since the image of God is the uncorrupted
excellence of human nature, which shone in Adam before his defection, but
was afterwards so corrupted, and almost obliterated, that nothing remains
from the ruin but what is confused, mutilated, and defiled,—it is now
partly visible in the elect, inasmuch as they are regenerated by the
Spirit, but it will obtain its full glory in heaven. But that we may know
the parts of which it consists, it is necessary to treat of the faculties
of the soul. For that speculation of Augustine is far from being solid,
that the soul is a mirror of the Trinity, because it contains
understanding, will, and memory. Nor is there any probability in the
opinion which places the similitude of God in the dominion committed to
man; as though he resembled God only in this character, that he was
constituted heir and possessor of all things, whereas it must properly be
sought _in_ him, not _without_ him; it is an internal excellence of the
soul.

V. But, before I proceed any further, it is necessary to combat the
Manichæan error, which Servetus has attempted to revive and propagate in
the present age. Because God is said to have breathed into man the breath
of life,(406) they supposed that the soul was an emanation from the
substance of God; as though some portion of the infinite Deity had been
conveyed into man. But it may be easily and briefly shown how many
shameful and gross absurdities are the necessary consequences of this
diabolical error. For if the soul of man be an emanation from the essence
of God, it will follow that the Divine nature is not only mutable and
subject to passions, but also to ignorance, desires, and vices of every
kind. Nothing is more inconstant than man, because his soul is agitated
and variously distracted by contrary motions; he frequently mistakes
through ignorance; he is vanquished by some of the smallest temptations;
we know that the soul is the receptacle of every kind of impurity;—all
which we must ascribe to the Divine nature, if we believe the soul to be
part of the essence of God, or a secret influx of the Deity. Who would not
dread such a monstrous tenet? It is a certain truth, quoted by Paul from
Aratus, that “we are the offspring of God,” but in quality, not in
substance; forasmuch as he has adorned us with Divine endowments.(407) But
to divide the essence of the Creator, that every creature may possess a
part of it, indicates extreme madness. It must therefore be concluded
beyond all doubt, notwithstanding the Divine image is impressed on the
souls of men, that they were no less created than the angels. And creation
is not a transfusion, but an origination of existence from nothing. Nor,
because the spirit is given by God, and returns to him on its departure
from the body, is it immediately to be asserted, that it was plucked off
like a branch from his essence. And on this point also Osiander, while he
is elated with his own illusions, has involved himself in an impious
error, not acknowledging the image of God in man without his essential
righteousness, as though God could not, by the inconceivable power of his
Spirit, render us conformable to himself, unless Christ were to transfuse
himself substantially into us. However some persons may attempt to gloss
over these delusions, they will never so far blind the eyes of sensible
readers, as to prevent their perceiving that they savour of the error of
the Manichæans. And where Paul treats of the restoration of this image, we
may readily conclude from his words, that man was conformed to God not by
an influx of his substance, but by the grace and power of his Spirit. For
he says that, by beholding the glory of Christ, we are transformed into
the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord;(408) who certainly operates
in us not in such a manner as to render us consubstantial with God.

VI. It would be folly to seek for a definition of the soul from the
heathen philosophers, of whom Plato is almost the only one who has plainly
asserted it to be an immortal substance. Others indeed, the disciples of
Socrates, hint at it, but with great doubts; no one clearly teaches that
of which he was not persuaded himself. The sentiment of Plato, therefore,
is more correct, because he considers the image of God as being in the
soul. The other sects so confine its powers and faculties to the present
life, that they leave it nothing beyond the body. But we have before
stated from the Scripture, that it is an incorporeal substance; now we
shall add, that although it is not properly contained in any place, yet,
being put into the body, it inhabits it as its dwelling, not only to
animate all its parts, and render the organs fit and useful for their
respective operations, but also to hold the supremacy in the government of
human life; and that not only in the concerns of the terrestrial life, but
likewise to excite to the worship of God. Though this last point is not so
evident in the state of corruption, yet there remain some relics of it
impressed even on our very vices. For whence proceeds the great concern of
men about their reputation, but from shame? but whence proceeds shame,
unless from a respect for virtue? The principle and cause of which is,
that they understand themselves to have been born for the cultivation of
righteousness; and in which are included the seeds of religion. But as,
without controversy, man was created to aspire to a heavenly life, so it
is certain that the knowledge of it was impressed on his soul. And,
indeed, man would be deprived of the principal use of his understanding,
if he were ignorant of his felicity, the perfection of which consists in
being united to God. Thus the chief operation of the soul is to aspire
after it; and, therefore, the more a man studies to approach to God, the
more he proves himself a rational creature. Some maintain that in man
there are more souls than one, a sensitive and a rational one; but
notwithstanding some appearance of probability in what they adduce, yet,
as there is nothing solid in their arguments, we must reject them, unless
we are fond of tormenting ourselves with frivolous and useless things.
They say that there is a great repugnancy between the organic motions and
the rational part of the soul; as though reason were not also at variance
with itself, and some of its counsels were not in opposition to others,
like hostile armies. But as this confusion proceeds from the depravity of
nature, it affords no ground for concluding that there are two souls,
because the faculties are not sufficiently harmonious with each other. But
all curious discussion respecting the faculties themselves I leave to the
philosophers; a simple definition will suffice us for the edification of
piety. I confess, indeed, that the things which they teach are true, and
not only entertaining to be known, but useful and well digested by them;
nor do I prohibit those who are desirous of learning from the study of
them. I admit, then, in the first place, that there are five senses, which
Plato would rather call organs, by which all objects are conveyed into a
common sensory, as into a general repository; that next follows the fancy
or imagination, which discerns the objects apprehended by the common
sensory; next reason, to which belongs universal judgment; lastly, the
understanding, which steadily and quietly contemplates the objects
revolved and considered by reason. And thus to the understanding, reason,
and imagination, the three intellectual faculties of the soul, correspond
also the three appetitive ones—the will, whose place it is to choose those
things which the understanding and reason propose to it; the irascible
faculty, which embraces the things offered to it by reason and
imagination; and the concupiscible faculty, which apprehends the objects
presented by the imagination and sensation. Though these things are true,
or at least probable, yet, since I fear that they will involve us in their
obscurity rather than assist us, I think they ought to be omitted. If any
one chooses to make a different distribution of the powers of the soul, so
as to call one appetitive, which, though void of reason in itself, obeys
reason, if it be under the guidance of any other faculty; and to call
another intellective, which is itself a partaker of reason; I shall not
much oppose it. Nor have I any wish to combat the sentiment of Aristotle,
that there are three principles of action—sense, intellect, and appetite.
But let us rather choose a division placed within the comprehension of
all, and which certainly cannot be sought in the philosophers. For when
they wish to speak with the greatest simplicity, they divide the soul into
appetite and intellect, and make both these twofold. The latter, they say,
is sometimes contemplative, being content merely with knowledge, and
having no tendency to action,—which Cicero thinks is designated by the
word _ingenium_,—and sometimes practical, variously influencing the will
with the apprehension of good or evil. This division comprehends the
science of living in a just and virtuous manner. The latter, that is,
appetite, they divide into will and concupiscence; they call it “will,”
whenever appetite obeys reason; but when, shaking off the yoke of reason,
it runs into intemperance, they give it the name of “concupiscence.” Thus
they imagine that man is always possessed of reason sufficient for the
proper government of himself.

VII. We are constrained to depart a little from this mode of instruction,
because the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature
proceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very
different states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following
division—that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present
design, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the
understanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively
appear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to
choose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good;
to abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to
discuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of
itself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the
appetitive intellect. Without perplexing ourselves with unnecessary
questions, it should be sufficient for us to know that the understanding
is, as it were, the guide and governor of the soul; that the will always
respects its authority, and waits for its judgment in its desires. For
which reason Aristotle himself truly observed, that avoidance and pursuit
in the appetite, bear a resemblance to affirmation and negation in the
mind. How certain the government of the understanding is in the direction
of the will, we shall see in another part of this work. Here we only
intend to show that no power can be found in the soul, which may not
properly be referred to one or the other of those two members. But in this
manner we comprehend the sense in the understanding, which some
distinguish thus: sense, they say, inclines to pleasure, whereas the
understanding follows what is good; that thence it happens that the
appetite of sense becomes concupiscence and lust, and the affection of the
understanding becomes will. But instead of the word “appetite,” which they
prefer, I use the word “will,” which is more common.

VIII. God has furnished the soul of man, therefore, with a mind capable of
discerning good from evil, and just from unjust; and of discovering, by
the light of reason, what ought to be pursued or avoided; whence the
philosophers called this directing faculty το ἠγεμονικον, the principal or
governing part. To this he has annexed the will, on which depends the
choice. The primitive condition of man was ennobled with those eminent
faculties; he possessed reason, understanding, prudence, and judgment, not
only for the government of his life on earth, but to enable him to ascend
even to God and eternal felicity. To these was added choice, to direct the
appetites, and regulate all the organic motions; so that the will should
be entirely conformed to the government of reason. In this integrity man
was endued with free will, by which, if he had chosen, he might have
obtained eternal life. For here it would be unreasonable to introduce the
question respecting the secret predestination of God, because we are not
discussing what might possibly have happened or not, but what was the real
nature of man. Adam, therefore, could have stood if he would, since he
fell merely by his own will; but because his will was flexible to either
side, and he was not endued with constancy to persevere, therefore he so
easily fell. Yet his choice of good and evil was free; and not only so,
but his mind and will were possessed of consummate rectitude, and all his
organic parts were rightly disposed to obedience, till, destroying
himself, he corrupted all his excellencies. Hence proceeded the darkness
which overspread the minds of the philosophers, because they sought for a
complete edifice among ruins, and for beautiful order in the midst of
confusion. They held this principle, that man would not be a rational
animal, unless he were endued with a free choice of good or evil; they
conceived also that otherwise all difference between virtue and vice would
be destroyed, unless man regulated his life according to his own
inclination. Thus far it had been well, if there had been no change in
man, of which as they were ignorant, it is not to be wondered at if they
confound heaven and earth together. But those who profess themselves to be
disciples of Christ, and yet seek for free will in man, now lost and
overwhelmed in spiritual ruin, in striking out a middle path between the
opinions of the philosophers and the doctrine of heaven, are evidently
deceived, so that they touch neither heaven nor earth. But these things
will be better introduced in the proper place. At present be it only
remembered, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all
his posterity, who, deriving their original from him in his corrupted
state, have contracted an hereditary defilement. For all the parts of his
soul were formed with the utmost rectitude; he enjoyed soundness of mind,
and a will free to the choice of good. If any object, that he was placed
in a dangerous situation on account of the imbecility of this faculty, I
reply, that the station in which he was placed was sufficient to deprive
him of all excuse. For it would have been unreasonable that God should be
confined to this condition, to make man so as to be altogether incapable
either of choosing or of committing any sin. It is true that such a nature
would have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as though he
had been under any obligation to bestow this upon man, were unreasonable
and unjust in the extreme; since it was at his choice to bestow as little
as he pleased. But why he did not sustain him with the power of
perseverance, remains concealed in his mind; but it is our duty to
restrain our investigations within the limits of sobriety. He had received
the power, indeed, if he chose to exert it; but he had not the will to use
that power; for the consequence of this will would have been perseverance.
Yet there is no excuse for him; he received so much, that he was the
voluntary procurer of his own destruction; but God was under no necessity
to give him any other than an indifferent and mutable will, that from his
fall he might educe matter for his own glory.

Chapter XVI. God’s Preservation And Support Of The World By His Power, And
His Government Of Every Part Of It By His Providence.

To represent God as a Creator only for a moment, who entirely finished all
his work at once, were frigid and jejune; and in this it behoves us
especially to differ from the heathen, that the presence of the Divine
power may appear to us no less in the perpetual state of the world than in
its first origin. For although the minds even of impious men, by the mere
contemplation of earth and heaven, are constrained to rise to the Creator,
yet faith has a way peculiar to itself to assign to God the whole praise
of creation. To which purpose is that assertion of an Apostle before
cited, that it is only “through faith that we understand the worlds were
framed by the word of God;”(409) because, unless we proceed to his
providence, we have no correct conception of the meaning of this article,
“that God is the Creator;” however we may appear to comprehend it in our
minds, and to confess it with our tongues. The carnal sense, when it has
once viewed the power of God in the creation, stops there; and when it
proceeds the furthest, it only examines and considers the wisdom, and
power, and goodness, of the Author in producing such a work, which
spontaneously present themselves to the view even of those who are
unwilling to observe them. In the next place, it conceives of some general
operation of God in preserving and governing it, on which the power of
motion depends. Lastly, it supposes that the vigour originally infused by
God into all things is sufficient for their sustentation. But faith ought
to penetrate further. When it has learned that he is the Creator of all
things, it should immediately conclude that he is also their perpetual
governor and preserver; and that not by a certain universal motion,
actuating the whole machine of the world, and all its respective parts,
but by a particular providence sustaining, nourishing, and providing for
every thing which he has made.(410) Thus David, having briefly premised
that the world was made by God, immediately descends to the continual
course of his providence: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.”(411) He afterwards
adds, “The Lord beholdeth all the sons of men;”(412) and subjoins more to
the same purpose. For though all men argue not so skilfully, yet, since it
would not be credible that God was concerned about human affairs, if he
were not the Maker of the world, and no one seriously believes that the
world was made by God, who is not persuaded that he takes care of his own
works, it is not without reason that David conducts us by a most excellent
series from one to the other. In general, indeed, both philosophers teach,
and the minds of men conceive, that all the parts of the world are
quickened by the secret inspiration of God. But they go not so far as
David, who is followed by all the pious, when he says, “These all wait
upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou
givest them, they gather; thou openest thine hand, they are filled with
good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their
breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit,
they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth.”(413) Though
they subscribe to the assertion of Paul, that in God “we live, and move,
and have our being,”(414) yet they are very far from a serious sense of
his favour, celebrated by the Apostle; because they have no apprehension
of the special care of God, from which alone his paternal favour is known.

II. For the clearer manifestation of this difference, it must be observed
that the providence of God, as it is taught in Scripture, is opposed to
fortune and fortuitous accidents. Now, since it has been the common
persuasion in all ages, and is also in the present day almost the
universal opinion, that all things happen fortuitously, it is certain that
every correct sentiment concerning providence is not only obscured, but
almost buried in oblivion by this erroneous notion. If any one falls into
the hands of robbers, or meets with wild beasts; if by a sudden storm he
is shipwrecked on the ocean; if he is killed by the fall of a house or a
tree; if another, wandering through deserts, finds relief for his penury,
or, after having been tossed about by the waves, reaches the port, and
escapes, as it were, but a hair’s‐breadth from death,—carnal reason will
ascribe all these occurrences, both prosperous and adverse, to fortune.
But whoever has been taught from the mouth of Christ, that the hairs of
his head are all numbered,(415) will seek further for a cause, and
conclude that all events are governed by the secret counsel of God. And
respecting things inanimate, it must be admitted, that, though they are
all naturally endued with their peculiar properties, yet they exert not
their power, any further than as they are directed by the present hand of
God. They are, therefore, no other than instruments into which God infuses
as much efficacy as he pleases, bending and turning them to any actions,
according to his will. There is no power among all the creatures more
wonderful or illustrious, than that of the sun. For, besides his
illumination of the whole world by his splendour, how astonishing it is
that he cherishes and enlivens all animals with his heat; with his rays
inspires fecundity into the earth; from the seeds, genially warmed in her
bosom, produces a green herbage, which, being supported by fresh
nourishment, he increases and strengthens till it rises into stalks; feeds
them with perpetual exhalations, till they grow into blossoms, and from
blossoms to fruit, which he then by his influences brings to maturity;
that trees, likewise, and vines, by his genial warmth, first put forth
leaves, then blossoms, and from the blossoms produce their fruit! But the
Lord, to reserve the praise of all these things entirely to himself, was
pleased that the light should exist, and the earth abound in every kind of
herbs and fruits, before he created the sun. A pious man, therefore, will
not make the sun either a principal or necessary cause of those things
which existed before the creation of the sun, but only an instrument which
God uses, because it is his pleasure so to do; whereas he would find no
more difficulty in acting by himself without that luminary. Lastly, as we
read that the sun remained in one situation for two days at the prayer of
Joshua,(416) and that his shadow made a retrograde motion of ten degrees
for the sake of king Hezekiah,(417) God has declared by these few
miracles, that the daily rising and setting of the sun is not from a blind
instinct of nature, but that he himself governs his course, to renew the
memory of his paternal favour towards us. Nothing is more natural than the
succession of spring to winter, of summer to spring, and of autumn to
summer. But there is so great a diversity and inequality discovered in
this series, that it is obvious that every year, month, and day, is
governed by a new and particular providence of God.

III. And, indeed, God asserts his possession of omnipotence, and claims
our acknowledgment of this attribute; not such as is imagined by sophists,
vain, idle, and almost asleep, but vigilant, efficacious, operative, and
engaged in continual action; not a mere general principle of confused
motion, as if he should command a river to flow through the channels once
made for it, but a power constantly exerted on every distinct and
particular movement. For he is accounted omnipotent, not because he is
able to act, yet sits down in idleness, or continues by a general instinct
the order of nature originally appointed by him; but because he governs
heaven and earth by his providence, and regulates all things in such a
manner that nothing happens but according to his counsel. For when it is
said in the Psalms, that he does whatsoever he pleases,(418) it denotes
his certain and deliberate will. For it would be quite insipid to expound
the words of the Prophet in the philosophical manner, that God is the
prime agent, because he is the principle and cause of all motion; whereas
the faithful should rather encourage themselves in adversity with this
consolation, that they suffer no affliction, but by the ordination and
command of God, because they are under his hand. But if the government of
God be thus extended to all his works, it is a puerile cavil to limit it
to the influence and course of nature. And they not only defraud God of
his glory, but themselves of a very useful doctrine, who confine the
Divine providence within such narrow bounds, as though he permitted all
things to proceed in an uncontrolled course, according to a perpetual law
of nature; for nothing would exceed the misery of man, if he were exposed
to all the motions of the heaven, air, earth, and waters. Besides, this
notion would shamefully diminish the singular goodness of God towards
every individual. David exclaims, that infants yet hanging on the breasts
of their mothers are sufficiently eloquent to celebrate the glory of
God;(419) because, as soon as they are born, they find aliment prepared
for them by his heavenly care. This, indeed, is generally true; yet it
cannot escape the observation of our eyes and senses, being evidently
proved by experience, that some mothers have breasts full and copious, but
others almost dry; as it pleases God to provide more liberally for one,
but more sparingly for another. But they who ascribe just praise to the
Divine omnipotence, receive from this a double advantage. In the first
place, he must have ample ability to bless them, who possesses heaven and
earth, and whose will all the creatures regard so as to devote themselves
to his service. And, secondly, they may securely repose in his protection,
to whose will are subject all those evils which can be feared from any
quarter; by whose power Satan is restrained, with all his furies, and all
his machinations; on whose will depends all that is inimical to our
safety; nor is there any thing else by which those immoderate and
superstitious fears, which we frequently feel on the sight of dangers, can
be corrected or appeased. We are superstitiously timid, I say, if,
whenever creatures menace or terrify us, we are frightened, as though they
had of themselves the power to hurt us, or could fortuitously injure us;
or as if against their injuries God were unable to afford us sufficient
aid. For example, the Prophet forbids the children of God to fear the
stars and signs of heaven,(420) as is the custom of unbelievers. He
certainly condemns not every kind of fear. But when infidels transfer the
government of the world from God to the stars, pretending that their
happiness or misery depends on the decrees and presages of the stars, and
not on the will of God, the consequence is, that their fear is withdrawn
from him, whom alone they ought to regard, and is placed on stars and
comets. Whoever, then, desires to avoid this infidelity, let him
constantly remember, that in the creatures there is no erratic power, or
action, or motion; but that they are so governed by the secret counsel of
God, that nothing can happen but what is subject to his knowledge, and
decreed by his will.

IV. First, then, let the readers know that what is called providence
describes God, not as idly beholding from heaven the transactions which
happen in the world, but as holding the helm of the universe, and
regulating all events. Thus it belongs no less to his hands than to his
eyes. When Abraham said to his son, “God will provide,”(421) he intended
not only to assert his prescience of a future event, but to leave the care
of a thing unknown to the will of him who frequently puts an end to
circumstances of perplexity and confusion. Whence it follows, that
providence consists in action; for it is ignorant trifling to talk of mere
prescience. Not quite so gross is the error of those who attribute to God
a government, as I have observed, of a confused and promiscuous kind;
acknowledging that God revolves and impels the machine of the world, with
all its parts, by a general motion, without peculiarly directing the
action of each individual creature. Yet even this error is not to be
tolerated. For they maintain that this providence, which they call
universal, is no impediment either to all the creatures being actuated
contingently, or to man turning himself hither or thither at the free
choice of his own will. And they make the following partition between God
and man; that God by his power inspires him with motions, enabling him to
act according to the tendency of the nature with which he is endued; but
that man governs his actions by his own voluntary choice. In short, they
conceive, that the world, human affairs, and men themselves, are governed
by the power of God, but not by his appointment. I speak not of the
Epicureans, who have always infested the world, who dream of a god
absorbed in sloth and inactivity; and of others no less erroneous, who
formerly pretended that the dominion of God extended over the middle
region of the air, but that he left inferior things to fortune; since the
mute creatures themselves sufficiently exclaim against such evident
stupidity. My present design is to refute that opinion, which has almost
generally prevailed, which, conceding to God a sort of blind and uncertain
motion, deprives him of the principal thing, which is his directing and
disposing, by his incomprehensible wisdom, all things to their proper end;
and thus, robbing God of the government of the world, it makes him the
ruler of it in name only, and not in reality. For, pray, what is
governing, but presiding in such a manner, as to rule, by fixed decrees,
those over whom you preside? Yet I reject not altogether what they assert
concerning universal providence, provided they, on their part admit that
God governs the world, not merely because he preserves the order of nature
fixed by himself, but because he exercises a peculiar care over every one
of his works. It is true that all things are actuated by a secret instinct
of nature, as though they obeyed the eternal command of God, and that what
God has once appointed, appears to proceed from voluntary inclination in
the creatures. And to this may be referred the declaration of Christ, that
his Father and himself had always been working, even from the
beginning;(422) and the assertion of Paul, that “in him we live, and move,
and have our being;”(423) and also what is observed by the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, with a design to prove the Divinity of Christ,
that all things are sustained by the word of his power.(424) But they act
very improperly in concealing and obscuring, by this pretext, the doctrine
of a particular providence, which is asserted in such plain and clear
testimonies of Scripture, that it is surprising how any one could
entertain a doubt concerning it. And, certainly, they who conceal it with
this veil which I have mentioned, are obliged to correct themselves by
adding, that many things happen through the peculiar care of God; but this
they erroneously restrict to some particular acts. Wherefore we have to
prove, that God attends to the government of particular events, and that
they all proceed from his determinate counsel, in such a manner that there
can be no such thing as fortuitous contingence.

V. If we grant that the principle of motion originates from God, but that
all things are spontaneously or accidentally carried whither the bias of
nature impels them, the mutual vicissitudes of day and night, of winter
and summer, will be the work of God, inasmuch as he has distributed to
each its respective parts, and prescribed to them a certain law; that is,
this would be the case if with even tenor they always observed the same
measure, days succeeding to nights, months to months, and years to years.
But sometimes excessive heats and drought parch and burn the fruits of the
earth; sometimes unseasonable rains injure the crops of corn, and sudden
calamities are occasioned by showers of hail and storms: this will not be
the work of God; unless, perhaps, as either clouds or serene weather, or
cold or heat, derive their origin from the opposition of the stars and
other natural causes. But this representation leaves no room for God to
display or exercise his paternal favour, or his judgments. If they say
that God is sufficiently beneficent to man, because he infuses into heaven
and earth an ordinary power, by which they supply him with food, it is a
very flimsy and profane notion; as though the fecundity of one year were
not the singular benediction of God, and as though penury and famine were
not his malediction and vengeance. But as it would be tedious to collect
all the reasons for rejecting this error, let us be content with the
authority of God himself. In the law and in the prophets he frequently
declares, that whenever he moistens the earth with dew or with rain, he
affords a testimony of his favour; and that, on the contrary, when, at his
command, heaven becomes hard as iron, when the crops of corn are blasted
and otherwise destroyed, and when showers of hail and storms molest the
fields, he gives a proof of his certain and special vengeance. If we
believe these things, it is certain that not a drop of rain falls but at
the express command of God. David indeed praises the general providence of
God, because “he giveth food to the young ravens which cry;”(425) but when
God himself threatens animals with famine, does he not plainly declare,
that he feeds all living creatures, sometimes with a smaller allowance,
sometimes with a larger, as he pleases? It is puerile, as I have already
observed, to restrain this to particular acts; whereas Christ says,
without any exception, that not a sparrow of the least value falls to the
ground without the will of the Father.(426) Certainly, if the flight of
birds be directed by the unerring counsel of God, we must be constrained
to confess with the Prophet, that, though “he dwelleth on high,” yet “he
humbleth himself to behold the things which are in heaven and in the
earth.”(427)

VI. But as we know that the world was made chiefly for the sake of
mankind, we must also observe this end in the government of it. The
Prophet Jeremiah exclaims, “I know that the way of man is not in himself:
it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”(428) And Solomon:
“Man’s goings are of the Lord: how can a man then understand his own
way?”(429) Now, let them say that man is actuated by God according to the
bias of his nature, but that he directs that influence according to his
own pleasure. If this could be asserted with truth, man would have the
free choice of his own ways. That, perhaps, they will deny, because he can
do nothing independently of the power of God. But since it is evident that
both the Prophet and Solomon ascribe to God choice and appointment, as
well as power, this by no means extricates them from the difficulty. But
Solomon, in another place, beautifully reproves this temerity of men, who
predetermine on an end for themselves, without regard to God, as though
they were not led by his hand: “The preparation of the heart in man,” says
he, “and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.”(430) It is, indeed,
a ridiculous madness for miserable men to resolve on undertaking any work
independently of God, whilst they cannot even speak a word but what he
chooses. Moreover, the Scripture, more fully to express that nothing is
transacted in the world but according to his destination, shows that those
things are subject to him which appear most fortuitous. For what would you
be more ready to attribute to chance, than when a limb broken off from a
tree kills a passing traveller? But very different is the decision of the
Lord, who acknowledges that he has delivered him into the hand of the
slayer.(431) Who, likewise, does not leave lots to the blindness of
fortune? Yet the Lord leaves them not, but claims the disposal of them
himself. He teaches us that it is not by any power of their own that lots
are cast into the lap(432) and drawn out; but the only thing which could
be ascribed to chance, he declares to belong to himself. To the same
purpose is another passage from Solomon: “The poor and the deceitful man
meet together: the Lord enlighteneth the eyes of them both.”(433) For
although the poor and the rich are blended together in the world, yet, as
their respective conditions are assigned to them by Divine appointment, he
suggests that God, who enlightens all, is not blind, and thus exhorts the
poor to patience; because those who are discontented with their lot, are
endeavouring to shake off the burden imposed on them by God. Thus also
another Prophet rebukes profane persons, who attribute it to human
industry, or to fortune, that some men remain in obscurity, and others
rise to honours: “Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the
west, nor from the south. But God is the Judge; he putteth down one, and
setteth up another.”(434) Since God cannot divest himself of the office of
a judge, hence he reasons, that it is from the secret counsel of God, that
some rise to promotion, and others remain in contempt.

VII. Moreover, particular events are in general proofs of the special
providence of God. God raised in the desert a south wind, to convey to the
people a large flock of birds.(435) When he would have Jonah thrown into
the sea, he sent forth a wind to raise a tempest.(436) It will be said by
them who suppose God not to hold the helm of the world, that this was a
deviation from the common course of things. But the conclusion which I
deduce from it is, that no wind ever rises or blows but by the special
command of God. For otherwise it would not be true that he makes the winds
his messengers, and a flame of fire his ministers, that he makes the
clouds his chariot, and rides on the wings of the wind,(437) unless he
directed at his pleasure the course both of the clouds and of the winds,
and displayed in them the singular presence of his power. Thus also we are
elsewhere taught, that, whenever the sea is blown into a tempest by the
winds, those commotions prove the special presence of God. “He commandeth
and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves” of the sea. “Then
he maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still;”(438) as
in another place he proclaims, that he scourged the people with parching
winds.(439) Thus, whilst men are naturally endued with a power of
generation, yet God will have it acknowledged as the effect of his special
favour, that he leaves some without any posterity, and bestows children on
others; for “the fruit of the womb is his reward.”(440) Therefore Jacob
said to his wife, “Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the
fruit of the womb?”(441) But to conclude; there is nothing more common in
nature, than for us to be nourished with bread. But the Spirit declares,
not only that the produce of the earth is the special gift of God, but
that men do not live by bread alone;(442) because they are supported not
by the abundance of their food, but by the secret benediction of God; as,
on the contrary, he threatens that he will break “the stay of bread.”(443)
Nor, indeed, could we otherwise seriously offer a prayer for daily bread,
if God did not supply us with food from his fatherly hand. The Prophet,
therefore, to convince the faithful that in feeding them God acts the part
of an excellent father of a family, informs us, that he “giveth food to
all flesh.”(444) Lastly, when we hear, on the one hand, that “the eyes of
the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry,”
and, on the other, that “the face of the Lord is against them that do
evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth,”(445) we may be
assured that all creatures, above and below, are ready for his service,
that he may apply them to any use that he pleases. Hence we conclude, not
only that there is a general providence of God over the creatures, to
continue the order of nature, but that, by his wonderful counsel, they are
all directed to some specific and proper end.

VIII. Those who wish to bring an odium on this doctrine, calumniate it as
the same with the opinion of the Stoics concerning fate, with which
Augustine also was formerly reproached. Though we are averse to all
contentions about words, yet we admit not the term _fate_; both because it
is of that novel and profane kind which Paul teaches us to avoid, and
because they endeavour to load the truth of God with the odium attached to
it. But that dogma is falsely and maliciously charged upon us. For we do
not, with the Stoics, imagine a necessity arising from a perpetual
concatenation and intricate series of causes, contained in nature; but we
make God the Arbiter and Governor of all things, who, in his own wisdom,
has, from the remotest eternity, decreed what he would do, and now, by his
own power, executes what he has decreed. Whence we assert, that not only
the heaven and the earth, and inanimate creatures, but also the
deliberations and volitions of men, are so governed by his providence, as
to be directed to the end appointed by it. What then? you will say; does
nothing happen fortuitously or contingently? I answer, that it was truly
observed by Basil the Great, that _fortune_ and _chance_ are words of the
heathen, with the signification of which the minds of the pious ought not
to be occupied. For if all success be the benediction of God, and calamity
and adversity his malediction, there is no room left in human affairs for
fortune or chance. And we should attend to this declaration of Augustine:
“I am not pleased with myself,” says he, “for having, in my treatises
against the Academics, so frequently mentioned _fortune_, although I have
not intended by that word any goddess, but a fortuitous occurrence of
external things, either good or evil. Hence also such words, the use of
which no religion prohibits, as _perhaps_, _perchance_, _peradventure_,
which, nevertheless, must be entirely referred to the Divine providence.
And on this I have not been silent, remarking that perhaps what is
commonly termed _fortune_ is regulated by a secret order, and that what we
call _chance_ is only that, with the reason and cause of which we are not
acquainted. Thus, indeed, I have expressed myself; but I repent of having
mentioned _fortune_ in this manner, since I see that men are habituated to
a very sinful custom: when they ought to say, ‘This was the will of God,’
they say, ‘This was the will of Fortune.’ ” Finally, he every where
maintains, that if any thing be left to fortune, the world revolves at
random. And though he elsewhere decides, that all things are conducted
partly by the free will of man, partly by the providence of God, yet he
just after shows that men are subject to it and governed by it, assuming
as a principle that nothing could be more absurd, than for any thing to
happen independently of the ordination of God; because it would happen at
random. By this reasoning he excludes also any contingence dependent on
the human will; and immediately after more expressly asserts that we ought
not to inquire for any cause of the will of God. But in what sense
_permission_ ought to be understood, whenever it is mentioned by him, will
appear from one passage; where he proves that the will of God is the
supreme and first cause of all things, because nothing happens but by his
command or permission. He certainly does not suppose God to remain an idle
spectator, determining to permit any thing; there is an intervention of
actual volition, if I may be allowed the expression, which otherwise could
never be considered as a cause.

IX. Yet, since the dulness of our minds is very much below the sublimity
of the Divine providence, let us endeavour to assist them by a
distinction. I say, then, that, notwithstanding the ordination of all
things by the certain purpose and direction of God, yet to us they are
fortuitous: not that we suppose fortune holds any dominion over the world
and mankind, and whirls about all things at random, for such folly ought
to be far from the breast of a Christian; but because the order, reason,
end, and necessity of events are chiefly concealed in the purpose of God,
and not comprehended by the mind of man, those things are in some measure
fortuitous, which must certainly happen according to the Divine will. For
they present no other appearance, whether they are considered in their own
nature, or are estimated according to our knowledge and judgment. Let us
suppose, for example, that a merchant, having entered a wood in the
company of honest men, imprudently wanders from his companions, and,
pursuing a wrong course, falls into the hands of robbers, and is murdered.
His death was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him. For it is
said, not that he has foreseen to what limits the life of every man would
extend, but that he “hath appointed bounds which he cannot pass.”(446)
Yet, as far as our minds are capable of comprehending, all these
circumstances appear fortuitous. What opinion shall a Christian form on
this case? He will consider all the circumstances of such a death as in
their nature fortuitous; yet he will not doubt that the providence of God
presided, and directed fortune to that end. The same reasoning will apply
to future contingencies. All future things being uncertain to us, we hold
them in suspense, as though they might happen either one way or another.
Yet this remains a fixed principle in our hearts, that there will be no
event which God has not ordained. In this sense the word _chance_ is
frequently repeated in the book of Ecclesiastes; because, on the first
view, men penetrate not to the first cause, which lies deeply concealed.
And yet the doctrine of the Scripture respecting the secret providence of
God, has never been so far obliterated from the hearts of men, but that
some sparks of it always shone in the darkness. Thus the Philistine
sorcerers, though they fluctuated in uncertainty, ascribed adverse
accidents partly to God, partly to fortune. “If the ark,” say they, “goeth
up by that way, we shall know that God hath done us this great evil; but
if not, it was a chance that happened to us.”(447) They betrayed great
folly, indeed, after having been deceived by divination, to have recourse
to fortune; yet at the same time, we see them restrained, so that they
cannot dare to suppose the affliction which had befallen them was
fortuitous. But how God, by the reins of his providence, directs all
events according to his own pleasure, will appear by an eminent example.
At the very same instant of time when David had been overtaken in the
wilderness of Maon, behold, the Philistines made an irruption into the
land, and Saul was compelled to depart. If God, consulting the safety of
his servant, laid this impediment in the way of Saul, then, surely, though
the Philistines might have taken up arms suddenly, and contrary to human
expectation, yet we will not say that this happened by chance; but what to
us seems a contingency, faith will acknowledge to have been a secret
impulse of God. It is not always, indeed, that there appears a similar
reason; but it should be considered as indubitably certain, that all the
revolutions visible in the world proceed from the secret exertion of the
Divine power. What God decrees, must necessarily come to pass; yet it is
not by absolute or natural necessity. We find a familiar example in
respect to the bones of Christ. Since he possessed a body like ours, no
reasonable man will deny that his bones were capable of being broken; yet
that they should be broken was impossible. Hence, again, we perceive that
the distinctions of relative and absolute necessity, as well as necessity
of consequent and of consequence, were not without reason invented in the
schools; since God made the bones of his Son capable of being broken,
which, however, he had exempted from being actually broken, and thus
prevented, by the necessity of his purpose, what might naturally have come
to pass.

Chapter XVII. The Proper Application Of This Doctrine To Render It Useful
To Us.

As the minds of men are prone to vain subtleties, there is the greatest
danger that those who know not the right use of this doctrine will
embarrass themselves with intricate perplexities. It will therefore be
necessary to touch in a brief manner on the end and design of the
Scripture doctrine of the Divine ordination of all things. And here let it
be remarked, in the first place, that the providence of God is to be
considered as well in regard to futurity, as in reference to that which is
past; secondly, that it governs all things in such a manner as to operate
sometimes by the intervention of means, sometimes without means, and
sometimes in opposition to all means; lastly, that it tends to show the
care of God for the whole human race, and especially his vigilance in the
government of the Church, which he favours with more particular attention.
It must also be observed, that, although the paternal favour and
beneficence of God, or the severity of his justice, is frequently
conspicuous in the whole course of his providence, yet sometimes the
causes of events are concealed, so that a suspicion intrudes itself, that
the revolutions of human affairs are conducted by the blind impetuosity of
fortune; or the flesh solicits us to murmur, as though God amused himself
with tossing men about like tennis‐balls. It is true, indeed, if we were
ready to learn with quiet and sober minds, that the final issue
sufficiently proves the counsels of God to be directed by the best of
reasons; that he designs either to teach his people the exercise of
patience, or to correct their corrupt affections and subdue the
licentiousness of their appetites, or to constrain them to the practice of
self‐denial, or to arouse them from their indolence; and, on the other
hand, to abase the proud, to disappoint the cunning of the wicked, and to
confound their machinations. Yet, however the causes may be concealed from
us, or escape our observation, we must admit it as a certain truth, that
they are hidden with him; and must therefore exclaim with David, “Many, O
Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy
thoughts which are to us‐ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto
thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be
numbered.”(448) For, though our miseries ought always to remind us of our
sins, that the punishment itself may urge us to repentance, yet we see
that Christ ascribes more sovereignty to the secret purpose of the Father
in afflicting men, than to require him to punish every individual
according to his demerits. For concerning him who was born blind, he says,
“Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God
should be made manifest in him.”(449) For here sense murmurs, when
calamity precedes the very birth, as though it were a detraction from the
Divine clemency thus to afflict the innocent. But Christ declares that the
glory of his Father is manifested in this instance, provided our eyes are
clear to behold it. But we must proceed with modesty, cautious that we
call not God to an account at our tribunal; but that we entertain such
reverence for his secret judgments, as to esteem his will the most
righteous cause of every thing that he does. When thick clouds obscure the
heavens, and a violent tempest arises, because a gloomy mist is before our
eyes, and thunder strikes our ears, and terror stupefies all our
faculties, all things seem to us to be blended in confusion; yet during
the whole time the heavens remain in the same quiet serenity. So it must
be concluded, that while the turbulent state of the world deprives us of
our judgment, God, by the pure light of his own righteousness and wisdom,
regulates all those commotions in the most exact order, and directs them
to their proper end. And certainly the madness of many in this respect is
monstrous, who dare to arraign the works of God, to scrutinize his secret
counsels, and even to pass a precipitate sentence on things unknown, with
greater freedom than on the actions of mortal men. For what is more
preposterous than towards our equals to observe such modesty, as rather to
suspend our judgment than to incur the imputation of temerity, but
impudently to insult the mysterious judgments of God, which we ought to
hold in admiration and reverence?

II. None, therefore, will attain just and profitable views of the
providence of God, but he who considers that he has to do with his Maker
and the Creator of the world, and submits himself to fear and reverence
with all becoming humility. Hence it happens that so many worthless
characters in the present day virulently oppose this doctrine, because
they will admit nothing to be lawful for God, but what agrees with the
dictates of their own reason. They revile us with the utmost possible
impudence, because, not content with the precepts of the law, which
comprehend the will of God, we say that the world is governed also by his
secret counsels; as though, indeed, what we assert were only an invention
of our own brain, and the Holy Spirit did not every where plainly announce
the same, and repeat it in innumerable forms of expression. But as they
are restrained by some degree of shame from daring to discharge their
blasphemies against heaven, in order to indulge their extravagance with
greater freedom, they pretend that they are contending with us. But unless
they admit, that whatever comes to pass in the world is governed by the
incomprehensible counsel of God, let them answer, to what purpose is it
said in the Scripture that his “judgments are a great deep”?(450) For
since Moses proclaims, that the will of God is not to be sought far off,
in the clouds or in the deep,(451) because it is familiarly explained in
the law, it follows that there is another secret will, which is compared
to a profound abyss; concerning which Paul also says, “O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of
the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?”(452) It is true, that the law
and the Gospel contain mysteries which far transcend our capacities; but
since God illuminates the minds of his people with the spirit of
understanding, to apprehend these mysteries which he has condescended to
reveal in his word, there we have now no abyss, but a way in which we may
safely walk, and a lamp for the direction of our feet, the light of life,
and the school of certain and evident truth. But his admirable method of
governing the world is justly called a “great deep,” because, while it is
concealed from our view, it ought to be the object of our profound
adoration. Moses has beautifully expressed both in a few words. “The
secret things,” says he, “belong unto the Lord our God; but those things
which are revealed belong unto us and to our children.”(453) We see how he
enjoins us, not only to devote our attention to meditations on the law of
God, but to look up with reverence to his mysterious providence. This
sublime doctrine is declared in the book of Job, for the purpose of
humbling our minds. For the author concludes a general view of the machine
of the world, and a magnificent dissertation on the works of God, in these
words: “Lo, these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion is heard
of him!”(454) For which reason, in another place he distinguishes between
the wisdom which resides in God, and the method of attaining wisdom which
he has prescribed to men. For, after discoursing concerning the secrets of
nature, he says, that wisdom is known only to God, and “is hid from the
eyes of all living.” But a little after he subjoins, that it is published
in order to be investigated, because it is said to men, “Behold the fear
of the Lord, that is wisdom.”(455) To the same purpose is this observation
of Augustine: “Because we know not all that God does concerning us by an
excellent order we act according to the law in a good will only, but in
other respects are actuated according to it; because his providence is an
immutable law.” Therefore, since God claims a power unknown to us of
governing the world, let this be to us the law of sobriety and modesty, to
acquiesce in his supreme dominion, to account his will the only rule of
righteousness, and most righteous cause of all things. Not, indeed, that
absolute will which is the subject of the declamation of sophists,
impiously and profanely separating his justice from his power, but that
providence which governs all things, from which originates nothing but
what is right, although the reasons of it may be concealed from us.

III. Those who have learned this modesty, will neither murmur against God
on account of past adversities, nor charge him with the guilt of their
crimes, like Agamemnon, in Homer, who says, “The blame belongs not to me,
but to Jupiter and Fate.” Nor will they, as if hurried away by the Fates,
under the influence of despair, put an end to their own lives, like the
young man whom Plautus introduces as saying, “The condition of our affairs
is inconstant; men are governed by the caprice of the Fates; I will betake
myself to a precipice, and there destroy my life and every thing at once.”
Nor will they excuse their flagitious actions by ascribing them to God,
after the example of another young man introduced by the same poet, who
says, “God was the cause: I believe it was the Divine will. For had it not
been so, I know it would not have happened.” But they will rather search
the Scripture, to learn what is pleasing to God, that by the guidance of
the Spirit they may strive to attain it; and at the same time, being
prepared to follow God whithersoever he calls them, they will exhibit
proofs in their conduct that nothing is more useful than a knowledge of
this doctrine. Some profane men foolishly raise such a tumult with their
absurdities, as almost, according to a common expression, to confound
heaven and earth together. They argue in this manner: If God has fixed the
moment of our death, we cannot avoid it; therefore all caution against it
will be but lost labour. One man dares not venture himself in a way which
he hears is dangerous, lest he should be assassinated by robbers; another
sends for physicians, and wearies himself with medicines, to preserve his
life; another abstains from the grosser kinds of food, lest he should
injure his valetudinary constitution; another dreads to inhabit a ruinous
house; and men in general exert all their faculties in devising and
executing methods by which they may attain the object of their desires.
Now, either all these things are vain remedies employed to correct the
will of God, or life and death, health and disease, peace and war, and
other things which, according to their desires or aversions, men
industriously study to obtain or to avoid, are not determined by his
certain decree. Moreover they conclude, that the prayers of the faithful
are not only superfluous, but perverse, which contain petitions that the
Lord will provide for those things which he has already decreed from
eternity. In short, they supersede all deliberations respecting futurity,
as opposed to the providence of God, who, without consulting men, has
decreed whatever he pleased. And what has already happened they impute to
the Divine providence in such a manner as to overlook the person, who is
known to have committed any particular act. Has an assassin murdered a
worthy citizen? they say he has executed the counsel of God. Has any one
been guilty of theft or fornication? because he has done what was foreseen
and ordained by the Lord, he is the minister of his providence. Has a son,
neglecting all remedies, carelessly waited the death of his father? it was
impossible for him to resist God, who had decreed this event from
eternity. Thus by these persons all crimes are denominated virtues,
because they are subservient to the ordination of God.

IV. But in reference to future things, Solomon easily reconciles the
deliberations of men with the providence of God. For as he ridicules the
folly of those who presumptuously undertake any thing without the Lord, as
though they were not subject to his government, so in another place he
says, “A man’s heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his
steps;”(456) signifying that the eternal decrees of God form no impediment
to our providing for ourselves, and disposing all our concerns in
subservience to his will. The reason of this is manifest. For he who has
fixed the limits of our life, has also intrusted us with the care of it;
has furnished us with means and supplies for its preservation; has also
made us provident of dangers; and, that they may not oppress us unawares,
has furnished us with cautions and remedies. Now, it is evident what is
our duty. If God has committed to us the preservation of our life, we
should preserve it; if he offers supplies, we should use them; if he
forewarns us of dangers, we should not rashly run into them; if he
furnishes remedies, we ought not to neglect them. But it will be objected,
no danger can hurt, unless it has been ordained that it shall hurt us, and
then no remedies can avert it. But what if dangers are therefore not
fatal, because God has assigned you remedies to repulse and overcome them?
Examine whether your reasoning agrees with the order of the Divine
providence. You conclude that it is unnecessary to guard against danger,
because, if it be not fatal, we shall escape it without caution; but, on
the contrary, the Lord enjoins you to use caution, because he intends it
not to be fatal to you. These madmen overlook what is obvious to every
observer—that the arts of deliberation and caution in men proceed from the
inspiration of God, and that they subserve the designs of his providence
in the preservation of their own lives; as, on the contrary, by neglect
and slothfulness, they procure to themselves the evils which he has
appointed for them. For how does it happen, that a prudent man, consulting
his own welfare, averts from himself impending evils, and a fool is ruined
by his inconsiderate temerity, unless folly and prudence are in both cases
instruments of the Divine dispensation? Therefore it has pleased God to
conceal from us all future events, that we may meet them as doubtful
contingencies, and not cease to oppose to them the remedies with which we
are provided, till they shall have been surmounted, or shall have overcome
all our diligence. Therefore I have before suggested, that the providence
of God ought not always to be contemplated abstractedly by itself, but in
connection with the means which he employs.

V. The same persons inconsiderately and erroneously ascribe all past
events to the absolute providence of God. For since all things which come
to pass are dependent upon it, therefore, say they, neither thefts, nor
adulteries, nor homicides, are perpetrated without the intervention of the
Divine will. Why, therefore, they ask, shall a thief be punished for
having pillaged him whom it has pleased the Lord to chastise with poverty?
Why shall a homicide be punished for having slain him whose life the Lord
had terminated? If all such characters are subservient to the Divine will,
why shall they be punished? But I deny that they serve the will of God.
For we cannot say, that he who is influenced by a wicked heart, acts in
obedience to the commands of God, while he is only gratifying his own
malignant passions. That man obeys God, who, being instructed in his will,
hastens whither God calls him. Where can we learn his will, but in his
word? Therefore in our actions we ought to regard the will of God, which
is declared in his word. God only requires of us conformity to his
precepts. If we do any thing contrary to them, it is not obedience, but
contumacy and transgression. But it is said, if he would not permit it, we
should not do it. This I grant. But do we perform evil actions with the
design of pleasing him? He gives us no such command. We precipitate
ourselves into them, not considering what is his will, but inflamed with
the violence of our passions, so that we deliberately strive to oppose
him. In this manner even by criminal actions we subserve his righteous
ordination; because, in the infinite greatness of his wisdom, he well
knows how to use evil instruments for the accomplishment of good purposes.
Now, observe the absurdity of their reasoning: they wish the authors of
crimes to escape with impunity, because crimes are not perpetrated but by
the ordination of God. I admit more than this; even that thieves, and
homicides, and other malefactors, are instruments of Divine providence,
whom the Lord uses for the execution of the judgments which he has
appointed. But I deny that this ought to afford any excuse for their
crimes. For will they either implicate God in the same iniquity with
themselves, or cover their depravity with his righteousness? They can do
neither. They are prevented from exculpating themselves, by the reproofs
of their own consciences; and they can lay no blame upon God, for they
find in themselves nothing but evil, and in him only a legitimate use of
their wickedness. But it is alleged that he operates by their means. And
whence, I ask, proceeds the fetid smell of a carcass, which has been
putrefied and disclosed by the heat of the sun? It is visible to all that
it is excited by the solar rays; yet no person on this account attributes
to those rays an offensive smell. So, when the matter and guilt of evil
resides in a bad man, why should God be supposed to contract any
defilement, if he uses his service according to his own pleasure? Let us
dismiss this petulance, therefore, which may rail against the justice of
God from a distance, but can never reach that Divine attribute.

VI. But these cavils, or rather extravagancies of frenzy, will easily be
dispelled by the pious and holy contemplation of providence, which the
rule of piety dictates to us, so that we may derive from it the greatest
pleasure and advantage. The mind of a Christian, therefore, when it is
certainly persuaded that all things happen by the ordination of God, and
that there is nothing fortuitously contingent, will always direct its
views to him as the supreme cause of all things, and will also consider
inferior causes in their proper order. He will not doubt that the
particular providence of God is watchful for his preservation, never
permitting any event which it will not overrule for his advantage and
safety. But, since he is concerned in the first place with men, and in the
next place with the other creatures, he will assure himself, as to both,
that the providence of God reigns over all. With respect to men, whether
good or evil, he will acknowledge that their deliberations, wills,
endeavours, and powers, are under his control, so that it is at his option
to direct them whithersoever he pleases, and to restrain them as often as
he pleases. The vigilance of the particular providence of God for the
safety of the faithful is attested by numerous and very remarkable
promises: “Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee: he
shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.(457) He that dwelleth in the
secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the
Almighty.(458) He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye. We
have a strong city: salvation will God appoint for walls and
bulwarks.(459) Though a woman forget her sucking child, yet will I not
forget thee.”(460) Moreover, this is the principal scope of the Biblical
histories, to teach us that the Lord so sedulously defends the ways of the
saints, that they may not even “dash their foot against a stone.”(461)
Therefore, as we have a little before justly exploded the opinion of those
who hold a universal providence of God, which descends not to the care of
every creature in particular, so it is principally necessary and useful to
contemplate this special care towards ourselves. For this reason, Christ,
after having asserted that not the meanest sparrow falls to the ground
without the will of the Father,(462) immediately makes the following
application—that the more we exceed the value of sparrows, the greater
care we should consider God as exercising over us; and he carries this to
such an extent, that we may be confident that the hairs of our head are
numbered. What more can we desire for ourselves, if not a single hair can
fall from our head, but according to his will? I speak not exclusively of
the human race; but since God has chosen the Church for his habitation,
there is no doubt but he particularly displays his paternal care in the
government of it.

VII. The servant of God, encouraged by these promises and examples, will
add the testimonies, which inform us that all men are subject to his
power, either to conciliate their minds in our favour, or to restrain
their malice from being injurious. For it is the Lord who gives us favour,
not only with our friends, but also in the eyes of the Egyptians;(463) and
he knows how to subdue, by various methods, the fury of our enemies.
Sometimes he deprives them of understanding, so that they can form no
sober or prudent plans; as he sent Satan to fill the mouths of all the
prophets with falsehood, in order to deceive Ahab:(464) he infatuated
Rehoboam by the counsel of the young men, that through his own folly he
might be spoiled of his kingdom.(465) Sometimes, when he grants them
understanding, he so terrifies and dispirits them, that they can neither
determine nor undertake what they have conceived. Sometimes, also, when he
has permitted them to attempt what their rage and passion prompted, he
opportunely breaks their impetuosity, not suffering them to proceed to the
accomplishment of their designs. Thus he prematurely defeated the counsel
of Ahithophel, which would have been fatal to David.(466) Thus, also, he
takes care to govern all creatures for the benefit and safety of his
people, even the devil himself, who, we see, dared not to attempt any
thing against Job, without his permission and command.(467) The necessary
consequences of this knowledge are, gratitude in prosperity, patience in
adversity, and a wonderful security respecting the future. Every
prosperous and pleasing event, therefore, the pious man will ascribe
entirely to God, whether his beneficence be received through the ministry
of men, or by the assistance of inanimate creatures. For this will be the
reflection of his mind: “It is certainly the Lord that has inclined their
hearts to favour me, that has united them to me to be the instruments of
his benignity towards me.” In an abundance of the fruits of the earth, he
will consider, that it is the Lord who regards the heaven, that the heaven
may regard the earth, that the earth, also, may regard its own
productions: in other things he will not doubt that it is the Divine
benediction alone which is the cause of all prosperity; nor will he bear
to be ungrateful after so many admonitions.

VIII. If any adversity befall him, in this case, also, he will immediately
lift up his heart to God, whose hand is most capable of impressing us with
patience and placid moderation of mind. If Joseph had dwelt on a review of
the perfidy of his brethren, he never could have recovered his fraternal
affection for them. But as he turned his mind to the Lord, he forgot their
injuries, and was so inclined to mildness and clemency, as even
voluntarily to administer consolation to them, saying, “It was not you
that sent me hither, but God did send me before you to save your lives. Ye
thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good.”(468) If Job had
regarded the Chaldeans, by whom he was molested, he had been inflamed to
revenge; but recognizing the event at the same time as the work of the
Lord, he consoled himself with this very beautiful observation: “The Lord
gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”(469)
Thus David, when assailed by Shimei with reproachful language and with
stones, if he had confined his views to man, would have animated his
soldiers to retaliate the injury; but understanding that it was not done
without the instigation of the Lord, he rather appeases them: “Let him
curse,” says he, “because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David.”(470)
In another place he imposes the same restraint on the intemperance of his
grief: “I was dumb,” says he, “I opened not my mouth; because thou didst
it.”(471) If there be no more efficacious remedy for anger and impatience,
surely that man has made no small proficiency, who has learned in this
case to meditate on the Divine providence, that he may be able at all
times to recall his mind to this consideration: “It is the will of the
Lord, therefore it must be endured; not only because resistance is
unlawful and vain, but because he wills nothing but what is both just and
expedient.” The conclusion of the whole is this—that, when we suffer
injuries from men, forgetting their malice, which would only exasperate
our grief and instigate our minds to revenge, we should remember to ascend
to God, and learn to account it a certain truth, that whatever our enemies
have criminally committed against us, has been permitted and directed by
his righteous dispensation. To restrain us from retaliating injuries, Paul
prudently admonishes us that our contention is not with flesh and blood,
but with a spiritual enemy, the devil,(472) in order that we may prepare
ourselves for the contest. But this admonition is the most useful in
appeasing all the sallies of resentment, that God arms for the conflict
both the devil and all wicked men, and sits himself as the arbiter of the
combat, to exercise our patience. But if the calamities and miseries which
oppress us happen without the interposition of men, let us recollect the
doctrine of the law, that every prosperous event proceeds from the
benediction of God, but that all adverse ones are his maledictions;(473)
and let us tremble at that awful denunciation, “If ye will walk contrary
unto me, then will I also walk contrary unto you;”(474) language which
reproves our stupidity, while, according to the common apprehensions of
the flesh, esteeming every event, both prosperous and adverse, to be
fortuitous, we are neither animated to the worship of God by his benefits,
nor stimulated to repentance by his corrections. This is the reason of the
sharp expostulations of Jeremiah and of Amos,(475) because the Jews
supposed that both good and evil events came to pass without any
appointment of God. To the same purpose is this passage of Isaiah: “I form
the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord
do all these things.”(476)

IX. Yet at the same time a pious man will not overlook inferior causes.
Nor, because he accounts those from whom he has received any benefit, the
ministers of the Divine goodness, will he therefore pass them by
unnoticed, as though they deserved no thanks for their kindness; but will
feel, and readily acknowledge, his obligation to them, and study to return
it as ability and opportunity may permit. Finally, he will reverence and
praise God as the principal Author of benefits received, but will honour
men as his ministers; and will understand, what, indeed, is the fact, that
the will of God has laid him under obligations to those persons by whose
means the Lord has been pleased to communicate his benefits. If he suffer
any loss either through negligence or through imprudence, he will conclude
that it happened according to the Divine will, but will also impute the
blame of it to himself. If any one be removed by disease, whom, while it
was his duty to take care of him, he has treated with neglect,—though he
cannot be ignorant that that person had reached those limits which it was
impossible for him to pass, yet he will not make this a plea to extenuate
his guilt; but, because he has not faithfully performed his duty towards
him, will consider him as having perished through his criminal negligence.
Much less, when fraud and preconceived malice appear in the perpetration
either of murder or of theft, will he excuse those enormities under the
pretext of the Divine providence: in the same crime he will distinctly
contemplate the righteousness of God and the iniquity of man, as they
respectively discover themselves. But it is principally in regard to
things future that he will direct his attention to inferior causes of this
kind. For he will rank it among the blessings of the Lord, not to be
destitute of human aids which he may use for his own safety; he will
neither be remiss, therefore, in taking the advice, nor negligent in
imploring the help, of those whom he perceives to be capable of affording
him assistance; but, considering all the creatures, that can in any
respect be serviceable to him, as so many gifts from the Lord, he will use
them as the legitimate instruments of the Divine providence. And as he is
uncertain respecting the issue of his undertakings, except that he knows
that the Lord will in all things provide for his good, he studiously aims
at what, according to the best judgment he can form, will be for his
advantage. Nor, in conducting his deliberations, will he be carried away
by his own opinion, but will recommend and resign himself to the wisdom of
God, that he may be directed by its guidance to the right end. But he will
not place his confidence in external helps to such a degree as, if
possessed of them, securely to rely on them, or, if destitute of them, to
tremble with despair. For his mind will always be fixed solely on the
Divine providence, nor will he suffer himself to be seduced from a steady
contemplation of it, by any consideration of present things. Thus Joab,
though he acknowledges the event of battle to depend on the will and the
power of God, yet surrenders not himself to inactivity, but sedulously
executes all the duties of his office, and leaves the event to the Divine
decision. “Let us play the men,” says he, “for our people, and for the
cities of our God; and the Lord do that which seemeth him good.”(477) This
knowledge will divest us of temerity and false confidence, and excite us
to continual invocations of God; it will also support our minds with a
good hope, that without hesitation we may securely and magnanimously
despise all the dangers which surround us.

X. Herein is discovered the inestimable felicity of the pious mind. Human
life is beset by innumerable evils, and threatened with a thousand deaths.
Not to go beyond ourselves,—since our body is the receptacle of a thousand
diseases, and even contains and fosters the causes of diseases, a man must
unavoidably carry about with him destruction in unnumbered forms, and
protract a life which is, as it were, involved in death. For what else can
you say of it, when neither cold nor heat in any considerable degree can
be endured without danger? Now, whithersoever you turn, all the objects
around you are not only unworthy of your confidence, but almost openly
menace you, and seem to threaten immediate death. Embark in a ship; there
is but a single step between you and death. Mount a horse; the slipping of
one foot endangers your life. Walk through the streets of a city; you are
liable to as many dangers as there are tiles on the roofs. If there be a
sharp weapon in your hand, or that of your friend, the mischief is
manifest. All the ferocious animals you see are armed for your
destruction. If you endeavour to shut yourself in a garden surrounded with
a good fence, and exhibiting nothing but what is delightful, even there
sometimes lurks a serpent. Your house, perpetually liable to fire, menaces
you by day with poverty, and by night with falling on your head. Your
land, exposed to hail, frost, drought, and various tempests, threatens you
with sterility, and with its attendant, famine. I omit poison, treachery,
robbery, and open violence, which partly beset us at home, and partly
pursue us abroad. Amidst these difficulties, must not man be most
miserable, who is half dead while he lives, and is dispirited and alarmed
as though he had a sword perpetually applied to his neck? You will say
that these things happen seldom, or certainly not always, nor to every
man, but never all at once. I grant it; but as we are admonished by the
examples of others, that it is possible for them to happen also to us, and
that we have no more claim to exemption from them than others, we must
unavoidably dread them as events that we may expect. What can you imagine
more calamitous than such a dread? Besides, it is an insult to God to say
that he has exposed man, the noblest of his creatures, to the blindness
and temerity of fortune. But here I intend to speak only of the misery
which man must feel, if he be subject to the dominion of fortune.

XI. On the contrary, when this light of Divine providence has once shined
on a pious man, he is relieved and delivered not only from the extreme
anxiety and dread with which he was previously oppressed, but also from
all care. For, as he justly dreads fortune, so he ventures securely to
commit himself to God. This, I say, is his consolation, to apprehend that
his heavenly Father restrains all things by his power, governs all things
by his will, and regulates all things by his wisdom, in such a manner,
that nothing can happen but by his appointment; moreover, that God has
taken him under his protection, and committed him to the care of angels,
so that he can sustain no injury from water, or fire, or sword, any
further than the Divine Governor may be pleased to permit. For thus sings
the Psalmist: “Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler,
and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers,
and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and
buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the
arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness;
nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.”(478) Hence also proceeds
that confidence of glorying in the saints: “The Lord is on my side; I will
not fear what man can do unto me. The Lord is the strength of my life; of
whom shall I be afraid? Though a host should encamp against me—though I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.”(479)
How is it that their security remains unshaken, while the world appears to
be revolving at random, but because they know that the Lord is universally
operative, and confide in his operations as beneficial to them? Now, when
their safety is attacked, either by the devil or by wicked men, if they
were not supported by the recollection and contemplation of providence,
they must necessarily and immediately faint. But when they recollect, that
the devil and the whole army of the wicked are in every respect so
restrained by the Divine power, that they can neither conceive of any
hostility against us, nor, after having conceived it, form a plan for its
accomplishment, nor even move a finger towards the execution of such plan,
any further than he has permitted, and even commanded them; and that they
are not only bound by his chains, but also compelled to do him
service,—they have an abundant source of consolation. For as it belongs to
the Lord to arm their fury, and to direct it to whatever objects he
pleases, so it also belongs to him to fix its limits, that they may not
enjoy an unbounded triumph according to their own wills. Established in
this persuasion, Paul determined his journey in one place by the
permission of God, which in another he had declared was prevented by
Satan.(480) If he had only said that Satan was the obstacle, he would have
appeared to attribute too much power to him, as though he were able to
subvert the purposes of God; but when he states God to be the arbiter, on
whose permission all journeys depend, he at the same time shows, that
Satan, with all his machinations, can effect nothing but by his
permission. For the same reason, David, on account of the various and
constant vicissitudes of life, betakes himself to this asylum: “My times
are in thy hand.”(481) He might have mentioned either the course of life,
or _time_, in the singular number; but by the word _times_ he intended to
express, that, however unstable the condition of men may be, all the
vicissitudes which take place are under the government of God. For which
reason Rezin and the king of Israel, when, after the junction of their
forces for the destruction of Judah, they resembled firebrands kindled to
consume and ruin the land, are called by the Prophet “smoking
firebrands,”(482) which can do nothing but emit a little smoke. Thus
Pharaoh, when his riches, his strength, and the multitude of his forces,
rendered him formidable to all, is himself compared to a sea‐monster, and
his forces to fishes.(483) Therefore God denounces that he will take both
the captain and his army with his hook, and draw them whither he pleases.
Finally, to dwell no longer on this part of the subject, you will easily
perceive, on examination, that ignorance of providence is the greatest of
miseries, but that the knowledge of it is attended with the highest
felicity.

XII. On the doctrine of Divine providence, as far as it may conduce to the
solid instruction and consolation of the faithful, (for to satisfy a vain
curiosity is neither possible nor desirable,) enough would now have been
said, were it not for a difficulty arising from a few passages, which
apparently imply, in opposition to what has been stated, that the counsel
of God is not firm and stable, but liable to change according to the
situation of sublunary affairs. In the first place, there are several
instances in which repentance is attributed to God; as, that he repented
of having created man,(484) and of having exalted Saul to the
kingdom;(485) and that he will repent of the evil which he had determined
to inflict on his people, as soon as he shall have perceived their
conversion.(486) In the next place, we read of the abrogation of some of
his decrees. By Jonah he declared to the Ninevites,(487) that, after the
lapse of forty days, Nineveh should be destroyed; but their penitence
afterwards obtained from him a more merciful sentence. By the mouth of
Isaiah he denounced death to Hezekiah;(488) which the prayers and tears of
that monarch moved him to defer.(489) Hence many persons argue, that God
has not fixed the affairs of men by an eternal decree; but that every
year, day, and hour, he decrees one thing or another, according to the
respective merits of each individual, or to his own ideas of equity and
justice. With regard to repentance, we must not admit that it can happen
to God, any more than ignorance, or error, or impotence. For if no man
knowingly and willingly lays himself under the necessity of repentance, we
cannot attribute repentance to God, without saying either that he is
ignorant of the future, or that he cannot avoid it, or that he
precipitately and inconsiderately adopts a resolution, of which he
immediately repents. But that is so far from the meaning of the Holy
Spirit, that in the very mention of repentance, he denies that it can
belong to God, because “he is not a man, that he should repent.”(490) And
it must be remarked, that both these points are so connected in the same
chapter, that a comparison fully reconciles the apparent inconsistency.
Where it is said that God repented of having created Saul king, the change
declared to have taken place is figurative. It is almost immediately
added, that “The strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not
a man, that he should repent;”(491) in which, without any figure, his
immutability is plainly asserted. It is certain, therefore, that the
ordination of God in the administration of human affairs, is perpetual,
and superior to all repentance. And to place his constancy beyond all
doubt, even his adversaries have been constrained to attest it. For
Balaam, notwithstanding his reluctance, was obliged to break out into the
following exclamation: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the
son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?
or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”(492)

XIII. How, then, it will be inquired, is the term _repentance_ to be
understood, when attributed to God? I reply, in the same manner as all the
other forms of expression, which describe God to us after the manner of
men. For, since our infirmity cannot reach his sublimity, the description
of him which is given to us, in order that we may understand it, must be
lowered to the level of our capacity. His method of lowering it, is to
represent himself to us, not as he is in himself, but according to our
perception of him. Though he is free from all perturbation of mind, he
declares that he is angry with sinners.(493) As, therefore, when we hear
that God is angry, we ought not to imagine any commotion in him, but
rather to consider this expression as borrowed from our perception,
because God carries the appearance of one who is very angry, whenever he
executes judgment,—so neither by the term _repentance_ ought we to
understand any thing but a change of actions; because men are accustomed
to express their dissatisfaction with themselves by changing their
actions. Since every change among men, therefore, is a correction of that
which displeases them, and correction proceeds from repentance, therefore
the term _repentance_ is used to signify that God makes a change in his
works. Yet, at the same time, there is no alteration in his counsel or his
will, nor any change in his affections; but how sudden soever the
variation may appear to the eyes of men, he perpetually and regularly
prosecutes what he has foreseen, approved, and decreed from eternity.

XIV. Nor does the Sacred History, when it records the remission of the
destruction which had just been denounced against the Ninevites, and the
prolongation of the life of Hezekiah after he had been threatened with
death, prove that there was any abrogation of the Divine decrees. Persons
who thus understand it, are deceived in their ideas of the threatenings;
which, though expressed in the form of simple declarations, yet, as the
event shows, contain in them a tacit condition. For why did God send Jonah
to the Ninevites, to predict the ruin of their city? Why did he, by the
mouth of Isaiah, warn Hezekiah of death? He could have destroyed both them
and him, without previously announcing their end. He had some other object
in view, therefore, than to forewarn them of their death, and to give them
a distant prospect of its approach. And that was not to destroy them, but
to reform them, that they might not be destroyed. Therefore the prediction
of Jonah, that after forty days Nineveh should fall, was uttered to
prevent its fall. Hezekiah was deprived of the hope of a longer life, in
order that he might obtain a prolongation of it in answer to his prayers.
Now, who does not see, that the Lord, by such denunciations as these,
intended to arouse to repentance the persons whom he thus alarmed, that
they might escape the judgment which their sins had deserved? If this be
admitted, the nature of the circumstances leads to the conclusion, that we
must understand a tacit condition implied in the simple denunciation. This
is also confirmed by similar examples. The Lord, reprehending king
Abimelech for having deprived Abraham of his wife, uses these
words:—“Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast
taken; for she is a man’s wife.” But after Abimelech has excused himself,
the Lord speaks in this manner: “Restore the man his wife; for he is a
prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live; and if thou
restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that
are thine.”(494) You see how, by the first declaration, God terrifies his
mind, to dispose him to make satisfaction; but in the next, he makes an
explicit declaration of his will. Since other passages are to be explained
in a similar manner, you must not infer that there is any abrogation of a
prior purpose of the Lord, because he may have annulled some former
declarations. For God rather prepares the way for his eternal ordination,
when, by a denunciation of punishment, he calls to repentance those whom
he designs to spare, than makes any variation in his will, or even in his
declarations, except that he does not syllabically express what,
nevertheless, is easily understood. For that assertion of Isaiah must
remain true: “The Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it?
and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?”(495)

Chapter XVIII. God Uses The Agency Of The Impious, And Inclines Their
Minds To Execute His Judgments, Yet Without The Least Stain Of His Perfect
Purity.

A question of greater difficulty arises from other passages, where God is
said to incline or draw, according to his own pleasure, Satan himself and
all the reprobate. For the carnal understanding scarcely comprehends how
he, acting by their means, contracts no defilement from their criminality,
and, even in operations common to himself and them, is free from every
fault, and yet righteously condemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence
was invented the distinction between _doing_ and _permitting_; because to
many persons this has appeared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satan and
all the impious are subject to the power and government of God, so that he
directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and uses their crimes for
the execution of his judgments. The modesty of those who are alarmed at
the appearance of absurdity, might perhaps be excusable, if they did not
attempt to vindicate the Divine justice from all accusation by a pretence
utterly destitute of any foundation in truth. They consider it absurd that
a man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and afterwards be
punished for his blindness. They therefore evade the difficulty, by
alleging that it happens only by the permission, and not by the will of
God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this
subterfuge. That men, however, can effect nothing but by the secret will
of God, and can deliberate on nothing but what he has previously decreed,
and determines by his secret direction, is proved by express and
innumerable testimonies. What we have before cited from the Psalmist, that
“God hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,”(496) undoubtedly pertains to
all the actions of men. If God be the certain arbiter of war and peace, as
is there affirmed, and that without any exception, who will venture to
assert, that he remains ignorant and unconcerned respecting men, while
they are actuated by the blind influence of chance? But this subject will
be better elucidated by particular examples. From the first chapter of Job
we know that Satan presents himself before God to receive his commands, as
well as the angels, who yield a spontaneous obedience. It is, indeed, in a
different manner, and for a different end; yet he cannot attempt any thing
but by the Divine will. Although he seems to obtain only a bare permission
to afflict that holy man, yet, since this sentence is true, “The Lord
gave, and the Lord hath taken away,”(497) we conclude that God was the
author of that trial, of which Satan and mischievous robbers and assassins
were the immediate agents. Satan endeavours to drive him by desperation
into madness. The Sabeans, in a predatory incursion, cruelly and wickedly
seize upon property not their own. Job acknowledges that he was stripped
of all his wealth, and reduced to poverty, because such was the will of
God. Therefore, whatever is attempted by men, or by Satan himself, God
still holds the helm, to direct all their attempts to the execution of his
judgments. God intends the deception of that perfidious king Ahab; the
devil offers his service for that purpose; he is sent with a positive
commission to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets.(498) If
the blinding and infatuation of Ahab be a Divine judgment, the pretence of
bare permission disappears. For it would be ridiculous for a judge merely
to permit, without decreeing what should be done, and commanding his
officers to execute it. The Jews designed to destroy Christ; Pilate and
his soldiers complied with their outrageous violence; yet the disciples,
in a solemn prayer, confess that all the impious did nothing but what “the
hand and the counsel of God determined before to be done;”(499) agreeably
to what Peter had already preached, that he was “delivered by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” that he might be “crucified
and slain.”(500) As though he had said that God, who saw every thing from
the beginning, with a clear knowledge and determined will, appointed what
the Jews executed; as he mentions in another place: “Those things which
God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should
suffer, he hath so fulfilled.”(501) Absalom, defiling his father’s bed
with incest, perpetrated a detestable crime; yet God pronounces that this
was his work; for his words are, “Thou didst it secretly; but I will do
this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”(502) Whatever cruelty
the Chaldeans exercised in Judea, Jeremiah pronounces to be the work of
God;(503) for which reason Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God.
God frequently proclaims, that the impious are excited to war by his
hissing, by the sound of his trumpet, by his influence, and by his
command: he calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger, and the staff which
he moves with his hand. The destruction of the holy city and the ruin of
the temple he calls his own work.(504) David, not murmuring against God,
but acknowledging him to be a righteous Judge, confesses the maledictions
of Shimei to proceed from his command. “The Lord,” says he, “hath said
unto him, Curse.”(505) It often occurs in the Sacred History, that
whatever comes to pass proceeds from the Lord; as the defection of the ten
tribes,(506) the death of the sons of Eli,(507) and many events of a
similar kind. Those who are but moderately acquainted with the Scriptures
will perceive that, for the sake of brevity, out of a great number of
testimonies, I have produced only a few; which, nevertheless, abundantly
evince how nugatory and insipid it is, instead of the providence of God,
to substitute a bare permission; as though God were sitting in a
watchtower, expecting fortuitous events, and so his decisions were
dependent on the will of men.

II. With respect to his secret influences, the declaration of Solomon
concerning the heart of a king, that it is inclined hither or thither
according to the Divine will,(508) certainly extends to the whole human
race, and is as much as though he had said, that whatever conceptions we
form in our minds, they are directed by the secret inspiration of God. And
certainly, if he did not operate internally on the human mind, there would
be no propriety in asserting, that he causes “the wisdom of the wise to
perish, and the understanding of the prudent to be hid; that he poureth
contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where
there is no way.”(509) And to this alludes, what we frequently read, that
men are timorous, as their hearts are possessed with his fear.(510) Thus
David departed from the camp of Saul, without the knowledge of any one;
“because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them all.”(511) But
nothing can be desired more explicit than his frequent declarations, that
he blinds the minds of men, strikes them with giddiness, inebriates them
with the spirit of slumber, fills them with infatuation, and hardens their
hearts.(512) These passages also many persons refer to permission, as
though, in abandoning the reprobate, God permitted them to be blinded by
Satan. But that solution is too frivolous, since the Holy Spirit expressly
declares that their blindness and infatuation are inflicted by the
righteous judgment of God. He is said to have caused the obduracy of
Pharaoh’s heart, and also to have aggravated and confirmed it. Some elude
the force of these expressions with a foolish cavil—that, since Pharaoh
himself is elsewhere said to have hardened his own heart, his own will is
stated as the cause of his obduracy; as though these two things were at
all incompatible with each other, that man should be actuated by God, and
yet at the same time be active himself. But I retort on them their own
objection; for if _hardening_ denotes a bare permission, Pharaoh cannot
properly be charged with being the cause of his own obstinacy. Now, how
weak and insipid would be such an interpretation, as though Pharaoh only
permitted himself to be hardened! Besides, the Scripture cuts off all
occasion for such cavils. God says, “I will harden his heart.”(513) So,
also, Moses says, concerning the inhabitants of Canaan, that they marched
forth to battle, because the Lord had hardened their hearts;(514) which is
likewise repeated by another Prophet—“He turned their hearts to hate his
people.”(515) Thus, also, in Isaiah, he declares he will “send the
Assyrian against a hypocritical nation, and will give him a charge to take
the spoil, and to take the prey;”(516) not that he meant to teach impious
and refractory men a voluntary obedience, but because he would incline
them to execute his judgments, just as if they had his commands engraven
on their minds. Hence it appears that they were impelled by the positive
appointment of God. I grant, indeed, that God often actuates the reprobate
by the interposition of Satan; but in such a manner that Satan himself
acts his part by the Divine impulse, and proceeds to the extent of the
Divine appointment. Saul was disturbed by an evil spirit; but it is said
to be “from the Lord;”(517) to teach us that Saul’s madness proceeded from
the righteous vengeance of God. Satan is also said to blind “the minds of
them which believe not;”(518) but the strength of the delusion proceeds
from God himself, “that they should believe a lie, who believe not the
truth.”(519) According to one view of the subject, it is said, “If the
prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived
that prophet.”(520) But, according to another, God is said himself to
“give men over to a reprobate mind,”(521) and to the vilest lusts; because
he is the principal author of his own righteous vengeance, and Satan is
only the dispenser of it. But as we must discuss this subject again in the
second book, where we shall treat of the freedom or slavery of the human
will, I think I have now said, in a brief manner, as much as the occasion
required. The whole may be summed up thus; that, as the will of God is
said to be the cause of all things, his providence is established as the
governor in all the counsels and works of men, so that it not only exerts
its power in the elect, who are influenced by the Holy Spirit, but also
compels the compliance of the reprobate.

III. But, as I have hitherto only recited such things as are delivered
without any obscurity or ambiguity in the Scriptures, let persons who
hesitate not to brand with ignominy those oracles of heaven, beware what
kind of opposition they make. For, if they pretend ignorance, with a
desire to be commended for their modesty, what greater instance of pride
can be conceived, than to oppose one little word to the authority of God!
as, “It appears otherwise to me,” or, “I would rather not meddle with this
subject.” But if they openly censure, what will they gain by their puny
attempts against heaven? Their petulance, indeed, is no novelty; for in
all ages there have been impious and profane men, who have virulently
opposed this doctrine. But they shall feel the truth of what the Spirit
long ago declared by the mouth of David, that God “is clear when he
judgeth.”(522) David obliquely hints at the madness of men who display
such excessive presumption amidst their insignificance, as not only to
dispute against God, but to arrogate to themselves the power of condemning
him. In the mean time, he briefly suggests, that God is unaffected by all
the blasphemies which they discharge against heaven, but that he
dissipates the mists of calumny, and illustriously displays his
righteousness; our faith, also, being founded on the Divine word,(523) and
therefore, superior to all the world, from its exaltation looks down with
contempt upon those mists. For their first objection, that, if nothing
happens but by the will of God, he has in him two contrary wills, because
he decrees in his secret counsel what he has publicly prohibited in his
law, is easily refuted. But before I reply, I wish the reader again to be
apprized, that this cavil is directed, not against me, but against the
Holy Spirit, who dictated to the pious Job this confession, that what had
befallen him had happened according to the Divine will: when he had been
plundered by banditti, he acknowledged in their injuries the righteous
scourge of God.(524) What says the Scripture in another case? “They,” the
sons of Eli, “hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the
Lord would slay them.”(525) The Psalmist also exclaims, that “God,” who
“is in the heavens, hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.”(526) And now I
have sufficiently proved, that God is called the author of all those
things, which, according to the system of these censors, happen only by
his uninfluential permission. He declares that he creates light and
darkness, that he forms good and evil,(527) and that no evil occurs, which
he has not performed. Let them say, then, whether he exercises his
judgments voluntarily or involuntarily. But as Moses suggests, that he who
is killed by the fortuitous fall of an axe, is delivered by God to the
stroke,(528) so in the Acts, the whole church asserts that Herod and
Pilate conspired to do what the hand and the counsel of God had
predetermined.(529) And indeed, unless the crucifixion of Christ was
according to the will of God, what becomes of our redemption? Yet the will
of God is neither repugnant to itself, nor subject to change, nor
chargeable with pretending to dislike what it approves; but whilst in him
it is uniform and simple, it wears to us the appearance of variety;
because the weakness of our understanding comprehends not how the same
thing may be in different respects both agreeable to his will, and
contrary to it. Paul, after having said that the vocation of the Gentiles
was a hidden mystery, adds, that it contained a manifestation of the
manifold wisdom of God.(530) Now, because, through the dulness of our
capacity, the Divine wisdom appears to us manifold, (or multiform, as it
has been translated by an ancient interpreter,) shall we therefore dream
of any vanity in God himself, as though his counsels were mutable, or his
thoughts contradictory to each other? Rather, while we comprehend not how
God intends that to be done, the doing of which he forbids, let us
remember our imbecility, and at the same time consider, that the light
which he inhabits, is justly called inaccessible,(531) because it is
overspread with impenetrable darkness. Therefore all pious and modest men
will easily acquiesce in this opinion of Augustine: “That a man may
sometimes choose, with a good intention, that which is not agreeable to
the will of God; as, if a good son wishes his father to live, whilst God
determines that he shall die. It is also possible for a man to will with a
bad design, what God wills with a good one; as, if a bad son wishes his
father to die, which is also the will of God. Now, the former wishes what
is not agreeable, the latter what is agreeable to the Divine will. And yet
the filial affection of the former is more consonant to the righteous will
of God, than the want of natural affection in the latter, though it
accords with his secret design. So great is the difference between what
belongs to the human will, and what to the Divine, and between the ends to
which the will of every one is to be referred, for approbation or censure.
For God fulfils his righteous will by the wicked wills of wicked men.”
This writer had just before said, that the apostate angels, and all the
reprobate, in their defection, acted, as far as respected themselves, in
direct opposition to the Divine will; but that this was not possible with
respect to the Divine omnipotence; because, while they are opposing the
will of God, his will is accomplished concerning them. Whence he exclaims,
“The works of the Lord are great, prepared according to all his
determinations;”(532) so that, in a wonderful and ineffable manner, that
is not done without his will which yet is contrary to his will; because it
would not be done if he did not permit it; and this permission is not
involuntary, but voluntary; nor would his goodness permit the perpetration
of any evil, unless his omnipotence were able even from that evil to educe
good.

IV. In the same manner we answer, or rather annihilate, another
objection—that, if God not only uses the agency of the impious, but
governs their designs and affections, he is the author of all crimes; and
therefore men are undeservedly condemned, if they execute what God has
decreed, because they obey his will. For his will is improperly confounded
with his precept, between which innumerable examples evince the difference
to be very great. For although, when Absalom defiled the wives of his
father, it was the will of God by this disgrace to punish the adultery of
David,(533) he did not therefore command that abandoned son to commit
incest, unless perhaps with respect to David, as he speaks of the
reproaches of Shimei.(534) For when he confesses Shimei’s maledictions to
proceed from the Divine command, he by no means commends his obedience, as
though that impudent and worthless man were fulfilling a Divine precept;
but acknowledging his tongue as the scourge of God, he patiently submits
to the chastisement. Let it be remembered, that whilst God by means of the
impious fulfils his secret decrees, they are not excusable, as though they
were obedient to his precepts, which they wantonly and intentionally
violate. The direction of the perverse actions of men, by the secret
providence of God, is illustriously exemplified in the election of
Jeroboam to the regal dignity.(535) The temerity and infatuation of the
people in this proceeding are severely condemned,(536) because they
perverted the order established by God, and perfidiously revolted from the
family of David; and yet we know that this event was agreeable to the
Divine will. Whence there is an appearance of contradiction also in the
language of Hosea; for in one place God complains that the erection of
that kingdom was without his knowledge and against his will; but in
another declares that he gave Jeroboam to be a king in his anger.(537) How
can these things be reconciled, that Jeroboam did not reign by the will of
God, and yet that God appointed him to be king? Why, thus: because neither
could the people revolt from the family of David, without shaking off the
yoke which God had imposed upon them; nor yet was God deprived of the
liberty of thus punishing the ingratitude of Solomon. We see, then, how
God, while he hates perfidy, yet righteously and with a different design
decrees the defection; whence also Jeroboam is, beyond all expectation,
constrained by the holy unction to assume the regal office. In the same
manner, the Sacred History relates, that God raised up an enemy, to
deprive the son of Solomon of part of the kingdom.(538) Let the reader
diligently consider both these things: because it had pleased God that the
people should be under the government of one king, their division into two
parts was contrary to his will; and yet from his will the schism first
originated. For certainly since a Prophet, both by a prediction and by the
ceremony of unction, excited a hope of succeeding to the kingdom, in the
mind of Jeroboam, who before entertained not a thought of such an event,
this could not be done, either without the knowledge, or against the will,
of God, who commanded it to be done; and yet the rebellion of the people
is justly condemned, because, in opposition to the Divine will, they
revolted from the posterity of David. Thus, also, it is afterwards
subjoined, that “the cause” of the haughty contempt of the people
manifested by Rehoboam “was of God, that the Lord might perform his word,
which he spake by the hand of Ahijah” his servant.(539) See how the sacred
union is divided, in opposition to the will of God, and yet by his will
the ten tribes are alienated from the son of Solomon. Let us add another
similar example, where, with the consent, and even by the assistance of
the people, the sons of Ahab are massacred, and all his posterity
exterminated.(540) Jehu, indeed, truly observed that “there had fallen
unto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord,” but that he had “done
that which he spake by his servant Elijah.” And yet he justly reprehends
the citizens of Samaria for having lent their assistance. “Are ye
righteous?” says he; “behold, I conspired against my master, and slew him;
but who slew all these?” If I am not deceived, I have now clearly
explained how the same act displays the criminality of men and the justice
of God. And to modest minds this answer of Augustine will always be
sufficient: “Since God delivered Christ, and Christ delivered his own
body, and Judas delivered the Lord, why, in this delivery, is God
righteous and man guilty? Because in the same act, they acted not from the
same cause.” But if any persons find greater difficulty in what we now
assert, that there is no consent between God and man, in cases where man
by his righteous influence commits unlawful actions, let them remember
what is advanced by Augustine in another place: “Who can but tremble at
those judgments, when God does even in the hearts of the wicked whatsoever
he pleases, and yet renders to them according to their demerits?” And
certainly it would no more be right to attribute to God the blame of the
perfidy of Judas, because he decreed the delivery of his Son, and actually
delivered him to death, than to transfer to Judas the praise of
redemption. Therefore the same writer elsewhere informs us, that in this
scrutiny God inquires, not what men could have done, nor what they have
done, but what they intended to do, that he may take cognizance of their
design and their will. Let those to whom there appears any harshness in
this procedure, consider a little how far their obstinacy is tolerable,
while they reject a truth which is attested by plain testimonies of
Scripture, because it exceeds their comprehension, and condemn the
publication of those things which God, unless he had known that the
knowledge of them would be useful, would never have commanded to be taught
by his Prophets and Apostles. For our wisdom ought to consist in embracing
with gentle docility, and without any exception, all that is delivered in
the sacred Scriptures. But those who oppose this doctrine with less
modesty and greater violence, since it is evident that their opposition is
against God, are unworthy of a longer refutation.

BOOK II. ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE REDEEMER IN CHRIST, WHICH WAS
REVEALED FIRST TO THE FATHERS UNDER THE LAW, AND SINCE TO US IN THE
GOSPEL.

Argument.

The discussion of the first part of the Apostolic Creed, on the knowledge
of God the Creator, being finished, is followed by another, on the
knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, which is the subject of this
Second Book.

It treats, first, of the occasion of redemption, that is, the fall of
Adam; secondly, of the redemption itself. The former of these subjects
occupies the first five chapters; the remaining ones are assigned to the
latter.

On the occasion of redemption, it treats, not only of the fall in general,
but also of its effects in particular; that is, of original sin, the
slavery of the will, the universal corruption of human nature, the
operation of God in the hearts of men—Chap. I.‐IV., to which is subjoined
a refutation of the objections commonly adduced in defence of free
will—Chap. V.

The discourse on redemption may be divided into five principal parts. It
shows,

1. In whom salvation must be sought by lost man, that is, in Christ—Chap.
VI.

2. How Christ has been manifested to the world; which has been in two
ways; first, under the law (which introduces an explanation of the
Decalogue, and a discussion of some other things relative to the
Law)—Chap. VII. VIII.; secondly, under the Gospel, which leads to a
statement of the similarity and difference of the two Testaments—Chap.
IX.‐XI.

3. What kind of a being it was necessary for Christ to be, in order to his
fulfilment of the office of a Mediator; that is, God and man in one
person—Chap. XII.‐XIV.

4. The end of his mission from the Father into the world—Chap. XV., which
explains his prophetical, regal, and sacerdotal offices.

5. The methods or steps by which he fulfilled the part of a Redeemer, to
procure our salvation—Chap. XVI.; which discusses the articles relating to
his crucifixion, death, burial, descent into hell, resurrection, ascension
to heaven, session at the right hand of the Father, and the benefits
arising from this doctrine. Then follows Chap. XVII., a solution of the
question, Whether Christ merited for us the grace of God and salvation.

Chapter I. The Fall And Defection Of Adam The Cause Of The Curse Inflicted
On All Mankind, And Of Their Degeneracy From Their Primitive Condition.
The Doctrine Of Original Sin.

There is much reason in the old adage, which so strongly recommends to man
the knowledge of himself. For if it be thought disgraceful to be ignorant
of whatever relates to the conduct of human life, ignorance of ourselves
is much more shameful, which causes us, in deliberating on subjects of
importance, to grope our way in miserable obscurity, or even in total
darkness. But in proportion to the utility of this precept ought to be our
caution not to make a preposterous use of it; as we see some philosophers
have done. For while they exhort man to the knowledge of himself, the end
they propose is, that he may not remain ignorant of his own dignity and
excellence: nor do they wish him to contemplate in himself any thing but
what may swell him with vain confidence, and inflate him with pride. But
the knowledge of ourselves consists, first, in considering what was
bestowed on us at our creation, and the favours we continually receive
from the Divine benignity, that we may know how great the excellence of
our nature would have been, if it had retained its integrity; yet, at the
same time, recollecting that we have nothing properly our own, may feel
our precarious tenure of all that God has conferred on us, so as always to
place our dependence upon him. Secondly, we should contemplate our
miserable condition since the fall of Adam, the sense of which tends to
destroy all boasting and confidence, to overwhelm us with shame, and to
fill us with real humility. For as God, at the beginning, formed us after
his own image, that he might elevate our minds both to the practice of
virtue, and to the contemplation of eternal life, so, to prevent the great
excellence of our species, which distinguishes us from the brutes, from
being buried in sottish indolence, it is worthy of observation, that the
design of our being endued with reason and intelligence is, that, leading
a holy and virtuous life, we may aspire to the mark set before us of a
blessed immortality. But we cannot think upon that primeval dignity,
without having our attention immediately called to the melancholy
spectacle of our disgrace and ignominy, since in the person of the first
man we are fallen from our original condition. Hence arise disapprobation
and abhorrence of ourselves, and real humility; and we are inflamed with
fresh ardour to seek after God, to recover in him those excellences of
which we find ourselves utterly destitute.

II. This is what the truth of God directs us to seek in the examination of
ourselves: it requires a knowledge that will abstract us from all
confidence in our own ability, deprive us of every cause of boasting, and
reduce us to submission. We must observe this rule, if we wish to reach
the proper point of knowledge and action. I am aware of the superior
plausibility of that opinion, which invites us rather to a consideration
of our goodness, than to a view of our miserable poverty and ignominy,
which ought to overwhelm us with shame. For there is nothing more desired
by the human mind than soothing flatteries; and therefore, it listens with
extreme credulity, to hear its excellences magnified. Wherefore it is the
less wonderful that the majority of mankind have fallen into such a
pernicious error. For, an immoderate self‐love being innate in all men,
they readily persuade themselves that there is nothing in them which
justly deserves to be an object of aversion. Thus, without any extraneous
support, this very false opinion, that man has in himself sufficient
ability to insure his own virtue and happiness, generally prevails. But if
some prefer more modest sentiments, though they concede something to God,
in order to avoid the appearance of arrogating every thing to themselves,
yet they make such a distribution, that the principal cause of boasting
and confidence always remains with them. If they hear any discourse that
flatters the pride already operating spontaneously in their hearts,
nothing can gratify them more. Therefore every one who in his preaching
has kindly extolled the excellence of human nature, has received great
applause from almost all ages. But such a commendation of human excellence
as teaches man to be satisfied with himself, only enamours him of his own
amiableness, and thus produces an illusion which involves those who assent
to it in most dreadful perdition. For to what purpose is it for us,
relying on every vain confidence, to deliberate, to determine, and to
attempt things which we think tend to our advantage, and in our first
efforts, to find ourselves destitute of sound understanding and true
virtue, yet securely to proceed, till we fall into destruction? But this
must be the fate of all who confide in the efficacy of their own virtue.
Whosoever, therefore, attends to such teachers as amuse us with a mere
exhibition of our virtues, will make no progress in the knowledge of
himself, but will be absorbed in the most pernicious ignorance.

III. Therefore, whilst the truth of God agrees in this point with the
common consent of all mankind, that the second branch of wisdom consists
in the knowledge of ourselves, yet with respect to the knowledge itself
there is no small disagreement. For, according to carnal apprehension, a
man is thought to be well acquainted with himself, when, confiding in his
own understanding and integrity, he assumes a presumptuous boldness,
incites himself to the duties of virtue, and, declaring war against vice,
uses his most strenuous endeavours to adhere to what is fair and
honourable. But he, who inspects and examines himself by the rule of the
Divine judgment, finds nothing that can raise his mind to a genuine
confidence; and the more fully he has examined himself, the greater is his
dejection; till, entirely discarding all confidence, he leaves himself no
ability for the proper conduct of his life. Yet it is not the will of God
that we should forget the primitive dignity conferred by him on our father
Adam, which ought justly to awaken us to the pursuit of righteousness and
goodness. For we cannot reflect on our original condition, and on the end
of our creation, without being excited to meditate on immortality, and to
aspire after the kingdom of God. But this reflection is so far from
elating us with pride, that it rather produces humility. For what is that
original condition? That from which we are fallen. What is that end of our
creation? That from which we are wholly departed; so that we should lament
the miseries of our present state, and in the midst of our lamentation,
aspire after the dignity which we have lost. Now, when we say that man
should behold in himself nothing that might elate him with pride, we mean
that there is nothing in him in the confidence of which he ought to be
proud. Wherefore we may divide the knowledge man ought to have of himself
into these two parts. First, he should consider the end of his being
created and endued with such estimable gifts; a reflection which may
excite him to the consideration of Divine worship, and of a future life.
Secondly, he should examine his own ability, or rather his want of
ability, the view of which may confound and almost annihilate him. The
former consideration is adapted to acquaint him with his duty, the latter
with his power to perform it. We shall treat of them both in regular
order.

IV. But, since it could not have been a trivial offence, but must have
been a detestable crime, that was so severely punished by God, we must
consider the nature of Adam’s sin, which kindled the dreadful flame of
Divine wrath against the whole human race. The vulgar opinion concerning
the intemperance of gluttony is quite puerile; as though the sum and
substance of all virtues consisted in an abstinence from one particular
kind of fruit, when there were diffused on every side all the delights
which could possibly be desired, and the happy fecundity of the earth
afforded an abundance and variety of dainties. We must therefore look
further, because the prohibition of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
was a test of obedience, that Adam might prove his willing submission to
the Divine government. And the name itself shows that the precept was
given for no other purpose than that he might be contented with his
condition, and not aim with criminal cupidity at any higher. But the
promise which authorized him to expect eternal life, as long as he should
eat of the tree of life, and, on the other hand, the dreadful denunciation
of death, as soon as he should taste of the tree of knowledge of good and
evil, were calculated for the probation and exercise of his faith. Hence
it is easy to infer by what means Adam provoked the wrath of God against
him. Augustine, indeed, properly observes, that pride was the first of all
evils; because, if ambition had not elated man beyond what was lawful and
right, he might have continued in his honourable situation. But we may
obtain a more complete definition from the nature of the temptation as
described by Moses. For as the woman, by the subtlety of the serpent, was
seduced to discredit the word of God, it is evident that the fall
commenced in disobedience. This is also confirmed by Paul, who states that
all men were ruined by the disobedience of one.(541) But it is also to be
observed, that when the first man rebelled against the government of God,
he not only was ensnared by the allurements of Satan, but despised the
truth, and turned aside to falsehood. And there certainly can be no
reverence of God left, where his word is contemned; for we preserve a
sense of his majesty and the purity of his worship, no longer than we
implicitly attend to his voice. Infidelity, therefore, was the root of
that defection. But hence sprang ambition, pride, and ingratitude, since
Adam, by coveting more than was granted, offered an indignity to the
Divine goodness, which had so greatly enriched him. Now, it was monstrous
impiety, that a son of the earth should not be satisfied with being made
after the similitude of God, unless he could also be equal to him. If
apostasy, which consists in revolting from the government of the Creator,
and petulantly rejecting his authority, be a base and execrable crime, it
is a vain attempt to extenuate the sin of Adam. Though the transgression
of our first parents was not simple apostasy; they were also guilty of
vile reproaches against God, in consenting to the calumnies of Satan, who
accused God of falsehood, envy, and malignity. Finally, infidelity opened
the gate to ambition, and ambition produced obstinacy, so that they cast
off the fear of God, and precipitated themselves whithersoever they were
led by their lawless desires. With propriety, therefore, Bernard teaches
that the gate of salvation is opened to us, when in the present day we
receive the Gospel with our ears, as death was once admitted at the same
doors when they lay open to Satan. For Adam had never dared to resist the
authority of God, if he had not discredited his word. This was certainly
the best check for a due regulation of all the affections, that the chief
good consists in the practice of righteousness, in obedience to the
commands of God; and that the ultimate end of a happy life is to be
beloved by him. Being seduced, therefore, by the blasphemies of the devil,
he did all that was in his power towards a total annihilation of the glory
of God.

V. As the spiritual life of Adam consisted in a union to his Maker, so an
alienation from him was the death of his soul. Nor is it surprising that
he ruined his posterity by his defection, which has perverted the whole
order of nature in heaven and earth. “The creatures groan,” says Paul,
“being made subject to vanity, not willingly.”(542) If the cause be
inquired, it is undoubtedly that they sustain part of the punishment due
to the demerits of man, for whose use they were created. And his guilt
being the origin of that curse which extends to every part of the world,
it is reasonable to conclude its propagation to all his offspring.
Therefore, when the Divine image in him was obliterated, and he was
punished with the loss of wisdom, strength, sanctity, truth, and
righteousness, with which he had been adorned, but which were succeeded by
the dreadful pests of ignorance, impotence, impurity, vanity, and
iniquity, he suffered not alone, but involved all his posterity with him,
and plunged them into the same miseries. This is that hereditary
corruption which the fathers called _original sin_; meaning by sin, the
depravation of a nature previously good and pure; on which subject they
had much contention, nothing being more remote from natural reason, than
that all should be criminated on account of the guilt of one, and thus his
sin become common; which seems to have been the reason why the most
ancient doctors of the Church did but obscurely glance at this point, or
at least explained it with less perspicuity than it required. Yet this
timidity could not prevent Pelagius from arising, who profanely pretended,
that the sin of Adam only ruined himself, and did not injure his
descendants. By concealing the disease with this delusion, Satan attempted
to render it incurable. But when it was evinced by the plain testimony of
the Scripture, that sin was communicated from the first man to all his
posterity, he sophistically urged that it was communicated by imitation,
not by propagation. Therefore good men, and beyond all others Augustine,
have laboured to demonstrate that we are not corrupted by any adventitious
means, but that we derive an innate depravity from our very birth. The
denial of this was an instance of consummate impudence. But the temerity
of the Pelagians and Celestians will not appear surprising to him who
perceives from the writings of Augustine, what a want of modesty they
discover in every thing else. There is certainly no ambiguity in the
confession of David, that he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin his mother
conceived him.(543) He is not there exposing the sins of his mother or of
his father; but to enhance his commendations of the Divine goodness
towards him, he commences the confession of his depravity from the time of
his conception. As it is evident that this was not peculiar to David, it
is fairly concluded, that his case exemplifies the common condition of
mankind. Every descendant, therefore, from the impure source, is born
infected with the contagion of sin; and even before we behold the light of
life, we are in the sight of God defiled and polluted. For “who can bring
a clean thing out of an unclean?” The book of Job tells us, “Not
one.”(544)

VI. We have heard that the impurity of the parents is so transmitted to
the children, that all, without a single exception, are polluted as soon
as they exist. But we shall not find the origin of this pollution, unless
we ascend to the first parent of us all, as to the fountain which sends
forth all the streams. Thus it is certain that Adam was not only the
progenitor, but as it were the root of mankind, and therefore that all the
race were necessarily vitiated in his corruption. The Apostle explains
this by a comparison between him and Christ: “As,” says he, “by one man
sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned,”(545) so, by the grace of Christ,
righteousness and life have been restored to us. What cavil will the
Pelagians raise here? That the sin of Adam was propagated by imitation? Do
we then receive no other advantage from the righteousness of Christ than
the proposal of an example for our imitation? Who can bear such blasphemy?
But if it cannot be controverted that the righteousness of Christ is ours
by communication, and life as its consequence, it is equally evident that
both were lost in Adam, in the same manner in which they were recovered in
Christ, and that sin and death were introduced by Adam, in the same manner
in which they are abolished by Christ. There is no obscurity in the
declaration that many are made righteous by the obedience of Christ,(546)
as they had been made sinners by the disobedience of Adam. And, therefore,
between these two persons there is this relation, that the one ruined us
by involving us in his destruction, the other by his grace has restored us
to salvation. Any more prolix or tedious proof of a truth supported by
such clear evidence must, I think, be unnecessary. Thus also in the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, with a view to confirm the pious in a
confidence of the resurrection, he shows, that the life which had been
lost in Adam, was recovered in Christ.(547) He, who pronounces that we
were all dead in Adam, does also at the same time plainly declare, that we
were implicated in the guilt of his sin. For no condemnation could reach
those who were perfectly clear from all charge of iniquity. But his
meaning cannot be better understood than from the relation of the other
member of the sentence, where he informs us that the hope of life is
restored in Christ. But that is well known to be accomplished, only when
Christ, by a wonderful communication, transfuses into us the virtue of his
righteousness; as it is elsewhere said, “The Spirit is life, because of
righteousness.”(548) No other explanation therefore can be given of our
being said to be dead in Adam, than that his transgression not only
procured misery and ruin for himself, but also precipitated our nature
into similar destruction. And that not by his personal guilt as an
individual, which pertains not to us, but because he infected all his
descendants with the corruption into which he had fallen. Otherwise there
would be no truth in the assertion of Paul, that all are by nature
children of wrath,(549) if they had not been already under the curse even
before their birth. Now, it is easily inferred that our nature is there
characterized, not as it was created by God, but as it was vitiated in
Adam; because it would be unreasonable to make God the author of death.
Adam, therefore, corrupted himself in such a manner, that the contagion
has been communicated from him to all his offspring. And Christ himself,
the heavenly Judge, declares, in the most unequivocal terms, that all are
born in a state of pravity and corruption, when he teaches, that
“whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh,”(550) and that, therefore, the
gate of life is closed against all who have not been regenerated.

VII. Nor, to enable us to understand this subject, have we any need to
enter on that tedious dispute, with which the fathers were not a little
perplexed, whether the soul of a son proceeds by derivation or
transmission from the soul of the father, because the soul is the
principal seat of the pollution. We ought to be satisfied with this, that
the Lord deposited with Adam the endowments he chose to confer on the
human nature; and therefore that when he lost the favours he had received,
he lost them not only for himself, but for us all. Who will be solicitous
about a transmission of the soul, when he hears that Adam received the
ornaments that he lost, no less for us than for himself? that they were
given, not to one man only, but to the whole human nature? There is
nothing absurd therefore, if, in consequence of his being spoiled of his
dignities, that nature be destitute and poor; if, in consequence of his
being polluted with sin, the whole nature be infected with the contagion.
From a putrefied root, therefore, have sprung putrid branches, which have
transmitted their putrescence to remoter ramifications. For the children
were so vitiated in their parent, that they became contagious to their
descendants: there was in Adam such a spring of corruption, that it is
transfused from parents to children in a perpetual stream. But the cause
of the contagion is not in the substance of the body or of the soul; but
because it was ordained by God, that the gifts which he conferred on the
first man should by him be preserved or lost both for himself and for all
his posterity. But the cavil of the Pelagians, that it is improbable that
children should derive corruption from pious parents, whereas they ought
rather to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted. For they
descend from their carnal generation, not from their spiritual generation.
Therefore, as Augustine says, “Neither the guilty unbeliever, nor the
justified believer, generates innocent, but guilty children, because the
generation of both is from corrupted nature.” If they in some measure
participate of the sanctity of their parents, that is the peculiar
benediction of the people of God, which supersedes not the first and
universal curse previously denounced on the human nature. For their guilt
is from nature, but their sanctification from supernatural grace.

VIII. To remove all uncertainty and misunderstanding on this subject, let
us define original sin. It is not my intention to discuss all the
definitions given by writers; I shall only produce one, which I think
perfectly consistent with the truth. Original sin, therefore, appears to
be an hereditary pravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through
all the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the Divine wrath, and
producing in us those works which the Scripture calls “works of the
flesh.”(551) And this is indeed what Paul frequently denominates _sin_.
The works which proceed thence, such as adulteries, fornications, thefts,
hatreds, murders, revellings, he calls in the same manner “fruits of sin;”
although they are also called “sins” in many passages of Scripture, and
even by himself. These two things therefore should be distinctly observed:
first, that our nature being so totally vitiated and depraved, we are, on
account of this very corruption, considered as convicted and justly
condemned in the sight of God, to whom nothing is acceptable but
righteousness, innocence, and purity. And this liableness to punishment
arises not from the delinquency of another; for when it is said that the
sin of Adam renders us obnoxious to the Divine judgment, it is not to be
understood as if we, though innocent, were undeservedly loaded with the
guilt of his sin; but, because we are all subject to a curse, in
consequence of his transgression, he is therefore said to have involved us
in guilt. Nevertheless we derive from him, not only the punishment, but
also the pollution to which the punishment is justly due. Wherefore
Augustine, though he frequently calls it the sin of another, the more
clearly to indicate its transmission to us by propagation, yet, at the
same time, also asserts it properly to belong to every individual. And the
Apostle himself expressly declares, that “death has therefore passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned;”(552) that is, have been involved in
original sin, and defiled with its blemishes. And therefore infants
themselves, as they bring their condemnation into the world with them, are
rendered obnoxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by the
sinfulness of another. For though they have not yet produced the fruits of
their iniquity, yet they have the seed of it within them; even their whole
nature is as it were a seed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and
abominable to God. Whence it follows, that it is properly accounted sin in
the sight of God, because there could be no guilt without crime. The other
thing to be remarked is, that this depravity never ceases in us, but is
perpetually producing new fruits, those works of the flesh, which we have
before described, like the emission of flame and sparks from a heated
furnace, or like the streams of water from a never failing spring.
Wherefore those who have defined original sin as a privation of the
original righteousness, which we ought to possess, though they comprise
the whole of the subject, yet have not used language sufficiently
expressive of its operation and influence. For our nature is not only
destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot
remain inactive. Those who have called it _concupiscence_ have used an
expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being
conceded by most persons, that every thing in man, the understanding and
will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence;
or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but
concupiscence.

IX. Wherefore I have asserted that sin has possessed all the powers of the
soul, since Adam departed from the fountain of righteousness. For man has
not only been ensnared by the inferior appetites, but abominable impiety
has seized the very citadel of his mind, and pride has penetrated into the
inmost recesses of his heart; so that it is weak and foolish to restrict
the corruption which has proceeded thence, to what are called the sensual
affections, or to call it an incentive which allures, excites, and
attracts to sin, only what they style the sensual part. In this the
grossest ignorance has been discovered by Peter Lombard, who, when
investigating the seat of it, says that it is in the flesh, according to
the testimony of Paul,(553) not indeed exclusively, but because it
principally appears in the flesh; as though Paul designated only a part of
the soul, and not the whole of our nature, which is opposed to
supernatural grace. Now, Paul removes every doubt by informing us that the
corruption resides not in one part only, but that there is nothing pure
and uncontaminated by its mortal infection. For, when arguing respecting
corrupt nature, he not only condemns the inordinate motions of the
appetites, but principally insists on the blindness of the mind, and the
depravity of the heart;(554) and the third chapter of his Epistle to the
Romans is nothing but a description of original sin. This appears more
evident from our renovation. For “the Spirit,” which is opposed to “the
old man” and “the flesh,” not only denotes the grace, which corrects the
inferior or sensual part of the soul, but comprehends a complete
reformation of all its powers. And therefore Paul not only enjoins us to
mortify our sensual appetites, but exhorts us to be renewed in the spirit
of our mind;(555) and in another place he directs us to be transformed by
the renewing of our mind.(556) Whence it follows, that that part, which
principally displays the excellence and dignity of the soul, is not only
wounded, but so corrupted, that it requires not merely to be healed, but
to receive a new nature. How far sin occupies both the mind and the heart,
we shall presently see. My intention here was only to hint, in a brief
way, that man is so totally overwhelmed, as with a deluge, that no part is
free from sin; and therefore that whatever proceeds from him is accounted
sin; as Paul says that all the affections or thoughts of the flesh are
enmity against God, and therefore death.(557)

X. Now, let us dismiss those who dare to charge God with their
corruptions, because we say that men are naturally corrupt. They err in
seeking for the work of God in their own pollution, whereas they should
rather seek it in the nature of Adam while yet innocent and uncorrupted.
Our perdition therefore proceeds from the sinfulness of our flesh, not
from God; it being only a consequence of our degenerating from our
primitive condition. And let no one murmur that God might have made a
better provision for our safety, by preventing the fall of Adam. For such
an objection ought to be abominated, as too presumptuously curious, by all
pious minds; and it also belongs to the mystery of predestination, which
shall afterwards be treated in its proper place. Wherefore let us
remember, that our ruin must be imputed to the corruption of our nature,
that we may not bring an accusation against God himself, the author of
nature. That this fatal wound is inherent in our nature, is indeed a
truth; but it is an important question, whether it was in it originally,
or was derived from any extraneous cause. But it is evident that it was
occasioned by sin. We have therefore no reason to complain, but of
ourselves; which in the Scripture is distinctly remarked. For the Preacher
says, “This only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they
have sought out many inventions.”(558) It is clear that the misery of man
must be ascribed solely to himself, since he was favoured with rectitude
by the Divine goodness, but has lapsed into vanity through his own folly.

XI. We say, therefore, that man is corrupted by a natural depravity, but
which did not originate from nature. We deny that it proceeded from
nature, to signify that it is rather an adventitious quality or accident,
than a substantial property originally innate. Yet we call it natural,
that no one may suppose it to be contracted by every individual from
corrupt habit, whereas it prevails over all by hereditary right. Nor is
this representation of ours without authority. For the same reason the
Apostle says, that we are all by nature the children of wrath.(559) How
could God, who is pleased with all his meanest works, be angry with the
noblest of all his creatures? But he is angry rather with the corruption
of his work, than with his work itself. Therefore, if, on account of the
corruption of human nature, man be justly said to be naturally abominable
to God, he may also be truly said to be naturally depraved and corrupt; as
Augustine, in consequence of the corruption of nature, hesitates not to
call those sins natural, which necessarily predominate in our flesh, where
they are not prevented by the grace of God. Thus vanishes the foolish and
nugatory system of the Manichæans, who, having imagined in man a
substantial wickedness, presumed to invent for him a new creator, that
they might not appear to assign the cause and origin of evil to a
righteous God.

Chapter II. Man, In His Present State, Despoiled Of Freedom Of Will, And
Subjected To A Miserable Slavery.

Since we have seen that the domination of sin, from the time of its
subjugation of the first man, not only extends over the whole race, but
also exclusively possesses every soul, it now remains to be more closely
investigated, whether we are despoiled of all freedom, and, if any
particle of it yet remain, how far its power extends. But, that we may the
more easily discover the truth of this question, I will first set up by
the way a mark, by which our whole course must be regulated. The best
method of guarding against error is to consider the dangers which threaten
us on every side. For when man is declared to be destitute of all
rectitude, he immediately makes it an occasion of slothfulness; and
because he is said to have no power of himself for the pursuit of
righteousness, he totally neglects it, as though it did not at all concern
him. On the other hand, he cannot arrogate any thing to himself, be it
ever so little, without God being robbed of his honour, and himself being
endangered by presumptuous temerity. Therefore, to avoid striking on
either of these rocks, this will be the course to be pursued—that man,
being taught that he has nothing good left in his possession, and being
surrounded on every side with the most miserable necessity, should,
nevertheless, be instructed to aspire to the good of which he is
destitute, and to the liberty of which he is deprived; and should be
roused from indolence with more earnestness, than if he were supposed to
be possessed of the greatest strength. The necessity of the latter is
obvious to every one. The former, I perceive, is doubted by more than it
ought to be. For this being placed beyond all controversy, that man must
not be deprived of any thing that properly belongs to him, it ought also
to be manifest how important it is that he should be prevented from false
boasting. For if he was not even then permitted to glory in himself, when
by the Divine beneficence he was decorated with the noblest ornaments, how
much ought he now to be humbled, when, on account of his ingratitude, he
has been hurled from the summit of glory to the abyss of ignominy! At that
time, I say, when he was exalted to the most honourable eminence, the
Scripture attributes nothing to him, but that he was created after the
image of God; which certainly implies that his happiness consisted not in
any goodness of his own, but in a participation of God. What, then,
remains for him now, deprived of all glory, but that he acknowledge God,
to whose beneficence he could not be thankful, when he abounded in the
riches of his favour? and that he now, at least, by a confession of his
poverty, glorify him, whom he glorified not by an acknowledgment of his
blessings? It is also no less conducive to our interests than to the
Divine glory, that all the praise of wisdom and strength be taken away
from us; so that they join sacrilege to our fall, who ascribe to us any
thing more than truly belongs to us. For what else is the consequence,
when we are taught to contend in our own strength, but that we are lifted
into the air on a reed, which being soon broken, we fall to the ground.
Though our strength is placed in too favourable a point of view, when it
is compared to a reed. For it is nothing but smoke, whatever vain men have
imagined and pretend concerning it. Wherefore it is not without reason,
that that remarkable sentence is so frequently repeated by Augustine, that
free will is rather overthrown than established even by its own advocates.
It was necessary to premise these things for the sake of some, who, when
they hear that human power is completely subverted in order that the power
of God may be established in man, inveterately hate this whole argument,
as dangerous and unprofitable; which yet appears to be highly useful to
us, and essential to true religion.

II. As we have just before said that the faculties of the soul consist in
the mind and the heart, let us now consider the ability of each. The
philosophers, indeed, with general consent, pretend, that in the mind
presides Reason, which like a lamp illuminates with its counsels, and like
a queen governs the will; for that it is so irradiated with Divine light
as to be able to give the best counsels, and endued with such vigour as to
be qualified to govern in the most excellent manner; that Sense, on the
contrary, is torpid and afflicted with weakness of sight, so that it
always creeps on the ground, and is absorbed in the grossest objects, nor
ever elevates itself to a view of the truth; that Appetite, if it can
submit to the obedience of reason, and resist the attractions of sense, is
inclined to the practice of virtues, travels the path of rectitude, and is
formed into will; but that, if it be devoted to the servitude of sense, it
is thereby so corrupted and depraved as to degenerate into lust. And as,
according to their opinion, there reside in the soul those faculties which
I have before mentioned, understanding, sense, and appetite, or
will,—which appellation is now more commonly used,—they assert that the
understanding is endued with reason, that most excellent guide to a good
and a happy life, provided it only maintains itself in its own excellence,
and exerts its innate power; but that the inferior affection of the soul,
which is called _sense_, and by which it is seduced into error, is of such
a nature that it may be tamed and gradually conquered by the rod of
reason. They place the will in the middle station between reason and
sense, as perfectly at liberty, whether it chooses to obey reason, or to
submit to the violence of sense.

III. Sometimes, indeed, being convinced by the testimony of experience,
they admit how extremely difficult it is for a man to establish within him
the kingdom of reason; while he is exposed at one time to the
solicitations of alluring pleasures, at another to the delusions of
pretended blessings, and at others to the violent agitations of immoderate
passions, compared by Plato to so many cords dragging him in various
directions. For which reason Cicero says that the sparks kindled by nature
are soon extinguished by corrupt opinions and evil manners. But when such
maladies have once taken possession of the human mind, they acknowledge
their progress to be too violent to be easily restrained; nor do they
hesitate to compare them to fierce horses, who, having rejected reason,
like horses that have thrown off the charioteer, indulge themselves in
every extravagance, without the least restraint. But they consider it as
beyond all controversy, that virtue and vice are in our own power; for if
it be at our election, they say, to do this or that, therefore it must
also be, to abstain from doing it. And, on the other hand, if we are free
to abstain from it, we must also be free to do it. But we appear freely
and voluntarily to do those things which we do, and to abstain from those
things from which we abstain; therefore, if we do any good action, when we
please we may omit it; if we perpetrate any evil, that also we may avoid.
Moreover, some of them have advanced to such a degree of presumption, as
to boast, that we are indebted to the gods for our life, but for a
virtuous and religious one to ourselves; whence also that assertion of
Cicero, in the person of Cotta, that, since every man acquires virtue for
himself, none of the wise men have ever thanked God for it. “For,” says
he, “we are praised for virtue, and in virtue we glory; which would not be
the case, if it were a gift of God, and did not originate from ourselves.”
And a little after: “This is the judgment of all men, that fortune must be
asked of God, but that wisdom must be derived from ourselves.” This, then,
is the substance of the opinion of all the philosophers, that the reason
of the human understanding is sufficient for its proper government; that
the will, being subject to it, is indeed solicited by sense to evil
objects, but, as it has a free choice, there can be no impediment to its
following reason as its guide in all things.

IV. Among the ecclesiastical writers, though there has not been one who
would not acknowledge both that human reason is grievously wounded by sin,
and that the will is very much embarrassed by corrupt affections, yet many
of them have followed the philosophers far beyond what is right. The early
fathers appear to me to have thus extolled human power from a fear lest,
if they openly confessed its impotence, they might, in the first place,
incur the derision of the philosophers, with whom they were then
contending; and, in the next place, might administer to the flesh, of
itself naturally too torpid to all that is good, a fresh occasion of
slothfulness. To avoid delivering any principle deemed absurd in the
common opinion of mankind, they made it their study, therefore, to
compromise between the doctrine of the Scripture and the dogmas of the
philosophers. Yet it appears from their language, that they principally
regarded the latter consideration, that they might leave no room for
slothfulness. Chrysostom says, “Since God has placed good and evil things
in our power, he has given us freedom of choice; and he constrains not the
unwilling, but embraces the willing.” Again: “Oftentimes a bad man, if he
will, is changed into a good one; and a good one falls into inactivity,
and becomes bad; because God has given us naturally a free will, and
imposes no necessity upon us, but, having provided suitable remedies,
permits the event to depend entirely on the mind of the patient.” Again:
“As without the assistance of Divine grace we can never do any thing
aright, so unless we bring what is our own, we shall never be able to gain
the favour of heaven.” He had before said, “That it may not be entirely of
the Divine assistance, it behoves us also to bring something.” And this is
an expression very familiar with him: “Let us bring what is ours; God will
supply the rest.” Agreeably to which Jerome says, “That it belongs to us
to begin, and to God to complete; that it is ours to offer what we can,
but his to supply our deficiencies.” In these sentences you see they
certainly attributed to man more than could justly be attributed to him
towards the pursuit of virtue; because they supposed it impossible to
awaken our innate torpor, otherwise than by arguing that this alone
constitutes our guilt; but with what great dexterity they did it, we shall
see in the course of our work. That the passages which we have recited are
exceedingly erroneous, will be shortly proved. Although the Greeks, beyond
all others, and among them particularly Chrysostom, have exceeded all
bounds in extolling the ability of the human will, yet such are the
variations, fluctuations, or obscurities of all the fathers, except
Augustine, on this subject, that scarcely any thing certain can be
concluded from their writings. Therefore we shall not scrupulously
enumerate the particular opinions of them all, but shall at times select
from one and another so much as the explication of the argument shall
appear to require. Succeeding writers, being every one for himself
ambitious of the praise of subtlety in the defence of human nature,
gradually and successively fell into opinions more and more erroneous;
till at length man was commonly supposed to be corrupted only in his
sensual part, but to have his will in a great measure, and his reason
entirely, unimpaired. In the mean time, it was proclaimed by every tongue,
that the natural talents in men were corrupted, but the supernatural taken
away—an expression of Augustine, of the import of which scarcely one man
in a hundred had the slightest idea. For myself, if I meant clearly to
state wherein the corruption of nature consists, I could easily content
myself with this language. But it is of great importance to examine with
attention what ability is retained by man in his present state, corrupted
in all the parts of his nature, and deprived of supernatural gifts. This
subject, therefore, has been treated in too philosophical a manner by
those who gloried in being the disciples of Christ. For the Latins have
always retained the term _free will_, as though man still remained in his
primitive integrity. And the Greeks have not been ashamed to use an
expression much more arrogant; for they called it αυτεξουσιον, denoting
that man possesses sovereign power over himself. Since all men, therefore,
even the vulgar, are tinctured with this principle, that man is endued
with free will, and some of those who would be thought intelligent know
not how far this freedom extends,—let us first examine the meaning of the
term, and then let us describe, according to the simplicity of the
Scripture, the power which man naturally possesses to do either good or
evil. What _free will_ is, though the expression frequently occurs in all
writers, few have defined. Yet Origen appears to have advanced a position
to which they all assented, when he calls it a power of _reason_ to
discern good and evil, of _will_ to choose either. Nor does Augustine
differ from him, when he teaches that it is a power of reason and will, by
which good is chosen when grace assists; and evil, when grace is wanting.
Bernard, while he affects greater subtlety, has expressed himself with
more obscurity: he says, it is a consent on account of the liberty of
will, which cannot be lost, and the judgment of reason, which cannot be
avoided. The definition of Anselm is not sufficiently plain, who states it
to be a power of preserving rectitude for its own sake. Therefore Peter
Lombard and the schoolmen have rather adopted the definition of Augustine,
because it was more explicit, and did not exclude the grace of God,
without which they perceived that the will had no power of itself. But
they also make such additions of their own, as they conceived to be either
better, or conducive to further explication. First, they agree that the
word _arbitrium_, _will_ or _choice_, should rather be referred to reason,
whose office it is to discern between good and evil; and that the epithet
_free_ belongs properly to the faculty of the will, which is capable of
being inclined to either. Wherefore, since liberty belongs properly to the
will, Thomas Aquinas says, that it would be a very good definition, if
free will were called _an elective power_, which, being composed of
understanding and appetite, inclines rather to appetite. We see where they
represent the power of free will to be placed; that is, in the reason and
will. It now remains briefly to inquire how much they attribute
respectively to each.

V. Common and external things, which do not pertain to the kingdom of God,
they generally consider as subject to the free determination of man; but
true righteousness they refer to the special grace of God and spiritual
regeneration. With a view to support this notion, the author of the
treatise “On the Vocation of the Gentiles” enumerates three kinds of
will—the first a sensitive, the second an animal, and the third a
spiritual one; the two former of which he states to be freely exercised by
us, and the last to be the work of the Holy Spirit in us. The truth or
falsehood of this shall be discussed in the proper place; for my design at
present is briefly to recite the opinions of others, not to refute them.
Hence, when writers treat of free will, their first inquiry respects not
its ability in civil or external actions, but its power to obey the Divine
law. Though I confess the latter to be the principal question, yet I think
the other ought not to be wholly neglected; and for this opinion I hope to
give a very good reason. But a distinction has prevailed in the schools,
which enumerates three kinds of liberty—the first, freedom from necessity,
the second, freedom from sin, the third, freedom from misery; of which the
first is naturally inherent in man, so that nothing can ever deprive him
of it: the other two are lost by sin. This distinction I readily admit,
except that it improperly confounds necessity with coaction. And the wide
difference between these things, with the necessity of its being
considered, will appear in another place.

VI. This being admitted will place it beyond all doubt, that man is not
possessed of free will for good works, unless he be assisted by grace, and
that special grace which is bestowed on the elect alone in regeneration.
For I stop not to notice those fanatics, who pretend that grace is offered
equally and promiscuously to all. But it does not yet appear, whether he
is altogether deprived of power to do good, or whether he yet possesses
some power, though small and feeble; which of itself can do nothing, but
by the assistance of grace does also perform its part. Lombard, in order
to establish this notion, informs us that two sorts of grace are necessary
to qualify us for the performance of good works. One he calls operative,
by which we efficaciously will what is good; the other coöperative, which
attends as auxiliary to a good will. This division I dislike, because,
while he attributes an efficacious desire of what is good to the grace of
God, he insinuates that man has of his own nature antecedent, though
ineffectual, desires after what is good; as Bernard asserts that a good
will is the work of God, but yet allows that man is self‐impelled to
desire such a good will. But this is very remote from the meaning of
Augustine, from whom, however, Lombard would be thought to have borrowed
this division. The second part of it offends me by its ambiguity, which
has produced a very erroneous interpretation. For they have supposed that
we coöperate with the second sort of Divine grace, because we have it in
our power either to frustrate the first sort by rejecting it, or to
confirm it by our obedience to it. The author of the treatise “On the
Vocation of the Gentiles” expresses it thus—that those who have the use of
reason and judgment are at liberty to depart from grace, that they may be
rewarded for not having departed, and that what is impossible without the
coöperation of the Spirit, may be imputed to their merits, by whose will
it might have been prevented. These two things I have thought proper to
notice as I proceed, that the reader may perceive how much I dissent from
the sounder schoolmen. For I differ considerably more from the later
sophists, as they have departed much further from the judgment of
antiquity. However, we understand from this division, in what sense they
have ascribed free will to man. For Lombard at length pronounces, that we
are not therefore possessed of free will, because we have an equal power
to do or to think either good or evil, but only because we are free from
constraint. And this liberty is not diminished, although we are corrupt,
and the slaves of sin, and capable of doing nothing but sin.

VII. Then man will be said to possess free will in this sense, not that he
has an equally free election of good and evil, but because he does evil
voluntarily, and not by constraint. That, indeed, is very true; but what
end could it answer to decorate a thing so diminutive with a title so
superb? Egregious liberty indeed, if man be not compelled to serve sin,
but yet is such a willing slave, that his will is held in bondage by the
fetters of sin. I really abominate contentions about words, which disturb
the Church without producing any good effect; but I think that we ought
religiously to avoid words which signify any absurdity, particularly when
they lead to a pernicious error. How few are there, pray, who, when they
hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately conceive, that he has
the sovereignty over his own mind and will, and is able by his innate
power to incline himself to whatever he pleases? But it will be said, all
danger from these expressions will be removed, if the people are carefully
apprized of their signification. But, on the contrary, the human mind is
naturally so prone to falsehood, that it will sooner imbibe error from one
single expression, than truth from a prolix oration; of which we have a
more certain experiment than could be wished in this very word. For
neglecting that explanation of the fathers, almost all their successors
have been drawn into a fatal self‐confidence, by adhering to the original
and proper signification of the word.

VIII. But if we regard the authority of the fathers—though they have the
term continually in their mouths, they at the same time declare with what
extent of signification they use it. First of all, Augustine, who
hesitates not to call the will a slave. He expresses his displeasure in
one place against those who deny free will; but he declares the principal
reason for it, when he says, “Only let no man dare so to deny the freedom
of the will, as to desire to excuse sin.” Elsewhere he plainly confesses,
that the human will is not free without the Spirit, since it is subject to
its lusts, by which it is conquered and bound. Again: that when the will
was overcome by the sin into which it fell, nature began to be destitute
of liberty. Again: that man, having made a wrong use of his free will,
lost both it and himself. Again: that free will is in a state of
captivity, so that it can do nothing towards righteousness. Again: that
the will cannot be free, which has not been liberated by Divine grace.
Again: that the Divine justice is not fulfilled, while the law commands,
and man acts from his own strength; but when the Spirit assists, and the
human will obeys, not as being free, but as liberated by God. And he
briefly assigns the cause of all this, when, in another place, he tells
us, that man at his creation received great strength of free will, but
lost it by sin. Therefore, having shown that free will is the result of
grace, he sharply inveighs against those who arrogate it to themselves
without grace. “How, then,” says he, “do miserable men dare to be proud of
free will, before they are liberated, or of their own strength, if they
have been liberated?” Nor do they consider that the term _free will_
signifies liberty. But “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.”(560) If, therefore, they are the slaves of sin, why do they
boast of free will? “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he
brought in bondage.”(561) But if they have been liberated, why do they
boast as of their own work? Are they so much at liberty as to refuse to be
the servants of him who says, “Without me ye can do nothing”?(562)
Besides, in another place, also, he seems to discountenance the use of
that expression, when he says that the will is free, but not liberated;
free from righteousness, enslaved to sin. This sentiment he also repeats
and applies in another place, where he maintains that man is not free from
righteousness, but by the choice of his will, and that he is not made free
from sin, but by the grace of the Saviour. He who declares that human
liberty is nothing but an emancipation or manumission from righteousness,
evidently exposes it to ridicule as an unmeaning term. Therefore, if any
man allows himself the use of this term without any erroneous
signification, he will not be troubled by me on that account: but because
I think that it cannot be retained without great danger, and that, on the
contrary, its abolition would be very beneficial to the Church, I would
neither use it myself, nor wish it to be used by others who may consult my
opinion.

IX. Perhaps I may be thought to have raised a great prejudice against
myself, by confessing that all the ecclesiastical writers, except
Augustine, have treated this subject with such ambiguities or variations,
that nothing certain can be learned from their writings. For some will
interpret this, as though I intended to deprive them of the right of
giving their suffrages, because their opinions are all adverse to mine.
But I have had no other object in view than simply and faithfully to
consult the benefit of pious minds, who, if they wait to discover the
sentiments of the fathers on this subject, will fluctuate in perpetual
uncertainty. At one time they teach man, despoiled of all strength of free
will, to have recourse to grace alone; at another, they either furnish, or
appear to furnish, him with armour naturally his own. Yet that, amidst all
this ambiguity of expression, esteeming the strength of man as little or
nothing, they have ascribed the praise of every thing that is good
entirely to the Holy Spirit, is not difficult to prove, if I introduce
some passages from them, in which this sentiment is clearly maintained.
For what is the meaning of that assertion of Cyprian, so frequently
celebrated by Augustine, “That we ought to glory in nothing, because we
have nothing of our own;” but that man, completely impoverished in
himself, should learn to depend entirely on God? What is the meaning of
that observation of Augustine and Eucherius, when they represent Christ as
the tree of life, to whom whosoever shall have stretched forth his hand
shall live; and free will as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and
say that whosoever forsakes the grace of God and tastes of it shall die?
What is the meaning of that assertion of Chrysostom, that every man by
nature is not only a sinner, but altogether sin? If we have not one good
quality, if from his head to his feet man be entirely sin, if it be wrong
even to try how far the power of the will extends,—how, then, can it be
right to divide the praise of a good work between God and man? I could
introduce many such passages from other fathers; but lest any one should
cavil, that I select only those things which favour my own cause, but
artfully omit those which oppose it, I refrain from such a recital. I
venture to affirm, however, that though they sometimes too highly extol
free will, yet their design was to teach man to discard all reliance on
his own power, and to consider all his strength as residing in God alone.
I now proceed to a simple explication of the truth in considering the
nature of man.

X. But I am obliged to repeat here, what I premised in the beginning of
this chapter—that he who feels the most consternation, from a
consciousness of his own calamity, poverty, nakedness, and ignominy, has
made the greatest proficiency in the knowledge of himself. For there is no
danger that man will divest himself of too much, provided he learns that
what is wanting in him may be recovered in God. But he cannot assume to
himself even the least particle beyond his just right, without ruining
himself with vain confidence, and incurring the guilt of enormous
sacrilege, by transferring to himself the honour which belongs to God. And
whenever our minds are pestered with this cupidity, to desire to have
something of our own, which may reside in ourselves rather than in God, we
may know that this idea is suggested by the same counsellor, who excited
in our first parents the desire of resembling “gods, knowing good and
evil.”(563) If that term be diabolical, which exalts man in his own
opinion, let us not admit it, unless we wish to take the counsel of an
enemy. It is pleasant, indeed, to have so much innate strength as to
confide in and be satisfied with ourselves. But from being allured into
this vain confidence, let us be deterred by the many awful sentences which
severely humble us to the dust; such as “Cursed be the man that trusteth
in man, and maketh flesh his arm.”(564) Again: “God delighteth not in the
strength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. The
Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his
mercy.”(565) Again: “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have
no might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary,
and the young men shall utterly fall; but they that wait upon the Lord
shall renew their strength.”(566) The tendency of all which is to prevent
us from depending, in the smallest degree, on our own strength, if we wish
God to be propitious to us, who “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace
unto the humble.”(567) Then let us remember these promises; “I will pour
water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground:”(568)
again; “Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters:”(569) which
declare, that none are admitted to a participation of the blessings of
God, but those who are pining away with a sense of their own poverty. Nor
should such promises as this of Isaiah be overlooked: “The sun shall be no
more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light
unto thee; but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light.”(570) The
Lord certainly does not deprive his servants of the splendour of the sun
or of the moon; but because he will appear exclusively glorious in them,
he calls off their confidence to a great distance, even from those things
which in their opinion are the most excellent.

XI. I have always, indeed, been exceedingly pleased with this observation
of Chrysostom, that humility is the foundation of our philosophy; but
still more with this of Augustine: “As a rhetorician,” says he, “on being
interrogated what was the first thing in the rules of eloquence, replied,
‘Pronunciation;’ and on being separately interrogated what was the second,
and what was the third, gave the same reply; so, should any one
interrogate me concerning the rules of the Christian religion, the first,
second, and third, I would always reply, Humility.” Now, he does not
consider it as humility, when a man, conscious to himself of some little
power, abstains from pride and haughtiness; but when he truly feels his
condition to be such that he has no refuge but in humility, as he
elsewhere declares. “Let no man,” says he, “flatter himself: of himself he
is a devil: every blessing he enjoys is only from God. For what have you
that is your own, but sin? Take to yourself sin, which is your own; for
righteousness belongs to God.” Again: “Why do men so presume on the
ability of nature? It is wounded, maimed, distressed, and ruined. It needs
a true confession, not a false defence.” Again: “When every one knows,
that in himself he is nothing, and that he cannot assist himself, the arms
are broken within him, and the contentions are subsided.” But it is
necessary that all the weapons of impiety should be broken in pieces and
consumed, that you may remain unarmed, and have no help in yourself. The
greater your weakness is in yourself, so much the more the Lord assists
you. So in the seventieth Psalm he forbids us to remember our own
righteousness, that we may know the righteousness of God; and shows that
God so recommends his grace to us, that we may know that we are nothing,
and are solely dependent on the Divine mercy, being of ourselves
altogether evil. Here, then, let us not contend with God concerning our
right, as though what is attributed to him were deducted from our welfare.
For as our humility is his exaltation, so the confession of our humility
has an immediate remedy in his commiseration. Now, I do not expect that a
man unconvinced should voluntarily submit, and, if he has any strength,
withdraw his attention from it to be reduced to true humility; but I
require, that, discarding the malady of self‐love and love of strife,
which blinds him, and leads him to entertain too high an opinion of
himself, he should seriously contemplate himself in the faithful mirror of
the Scripture.

XII. And, indeed, I much approve of that common observation which has been
borrowed from Augustine, that the natural talents in man have been
corrupted by sin, but that of the supernatural ones he has been wholly
deprived. For by the latter are intended, both the light of faith and
righteousness, which would be sufficient for the attainment of a heavenly
life and eternal felicity. Therefore, when he revolted from the Divine
government, he was at the same time deprived of those supernatural
endowments, which had been given him for the hope of eternal salvation.
Hence it follows, that he is exiled from the kingdom of God, in such a
manner, that all the affections relating to the happy life of the soul,
are also extinguished in him, till he recovers them by the grace of
regeneration. Such are faith, love to God, charity towards our neighbours,
and an attachment to holiness and righteousness. All these things, being
restored by Christ, are esteemed adventitious and preternatural; and
therefore we conclude that they had been lost. Again, soundness of mind
and rectitude of heart were also destroyed; and this is the corruption of
the natural talents. For although we retain some portion of understanding
and judgment together with the will, yet we cannot say that our mind is
perfect and sound, which is oppressed with debility and immersed in
profound darkness; and the depravity of our will is sufficiently known.
Reason, therefore, by which man distinguishes between good and evil, by
which he understands and judges, being a natural talent, could not be
totally destroyed, but is partly debilitated, partly vitiated, so that it
exhibits nothing but deformity and ruin. In this sense John says, that
“the light” still “shineth in darkness,” but that “the darkness
comprehendeth it not.”(571) In this passage both these ideas are clearly
expressed—that some sparks continue to shine in the nature of man, even in
its corrupt and degenerate state, which prove him to be a rational
creature, and different from the brutes, because he is endued with
understanding; and yet that this light is smothered by so much ignorance,
that it cannot act with any degree of efficacy. So the will, being
inseparable from the nature of man, is not annihilated; but it is fettered
by depraved and inordinate desires, so that it cannot aspire after any
thing that is good. This, indeed, is a complete definition, but requires
more diffuse explication. Therefore, that the order of our discourse may
proceed according to the distinction we have stated, in which we divided
the soul into understanding and will, let us first examine the power of
the understanding. To condemn it to perpetual blindness, so as to leave it
no intelligence in any thing, is repugnant, not only to the Divine word,
but also to the experience of common sense. For we perceive in the mind of
man some desire of investigating truth, towards which he would have no
inclination, but from some relish of it previously possessed. It therefore
indicates some perspicuity in the human understanding, that it is
attracted with a love of truth; the neglect of which in the brutes argues
gross sense without reason; although this desire, small as it is, faints
even before its entrance on its course, because it immediately terminates
in vanity. For the dulness of the human mind renders it incapable of
pursuing the right way of investigating the truth; it wanders through a
variety of errors, and groping, as it were, in the shades of darkness,
often stumbles, till at length it is lost in its wanderings; thus, in its
search after truth, it betrays its incapacity to seek and find it. It also
labours under another grievous malady, frequently not discerning what
those things are, the true knowledge of which it would be proper to
attain, and therefore torments itself with a ridiculous curiosity in
fruitless and unimportant inquiries. To things most necessary to be known
it either never adverts, or contemptuously and rarely digresses; but
scarcely ever studies them with serious application. This depravity being
a common subject of complaint with heathen writers, all men are clearly
proved to have been implicated in it. Wherefore Solomon, in his
Ecclesiastes, after having enumerated those pursuits in which men consider
themselves as displaying superior wisdom, concludes with pronouncing them
to be vain and frivolous.

XIII. Yet its attempts are not always so fruitless, but that it makes some
discoveries, particularly when it applies itself to inferior things. Nor
is it so stupid, as to be without some slender notion also of superior
ones, however negligently it attends to the investigation of them; but it
possesses not an equal ability for both. For it is when it goes beyond the
limits of the present life, that it is chiefly convinced of its own
imbecility. Wherefore, that we may better perceive how far it proceeds in
every case according to the degrees of its ability, it will be useful for
us to propose the following distinction; that there is one understanding
for terrestrial things, and another for celestial ones. I call those
things terrestrial which do not pertain to God and his kingdom, to true
righteousness, or to the blessedness of a future life; but which relate
entirely to the present life, and are in some sense confined within the
limits of it. Celestial things are the pure knowledge of God, the method
of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom. In the
first class are included civil polity, domestic economy, all the
mechanical arts and liberal sciences; in the second, the knowledge of God
and of the Divine will, and the rule for conformity to it in our lives.
Now, in regard to the first class, it must be confessed, that as man is
naturally a creature inclined to society, he has also by nature an
instinctive propensity to cherish and preserve that society; and therefore
we perceive in the minds of all men general impressions of civil probity
and order. Hence it is that not a person can be found who does not
understand, that all associations of men ought to be governed by laws, or
who does not conceive in his mind the principles of those laws. Hence that
perpetual consent of all nations, as well as all individuals, to the laws,
because the seeds of them are innate in all mankind, without any
instructor or legislator. I regard not the dissensions and contests which
afterwards arise, while some desire to invert all justice and propriety,
to break down the barriers of the laws, and to substitute mere cupidity in
the room of justice, as is the case with thieves and robbers. Others—which
is a fault more common—think that unjust which legislators have sanctioned
as just; and, on the contrary, pronounce that to be laudable which they
have forbidden. For the former of these hate not the laws from an
ignorance that they are good and sacred; but, inflamed with the violence
of their passions, manifestly contend against reason, and under the
influence of their lawless desires, execrate that which their judgments
approve. The controversy of the latter of these is by no means repugnant
to that original idea of equity which we have mentioned; for when men
dispute with each other on the comparative merits of different laws, it
implies their consent to some general rule of equity. This clearly argues
the debility of the human mind, which halts and staggers even when it
appears to follow the right way. Yet it is certainly true, that some seeds
of political order are sown in the minds of all. And this is a powerful
argument, that in the constitution of this life no man is destitute of the
light of reason.

XIV. Next follow the arts, both liberal and manual; for learning which, as
there is in all of us a certain aptitude, they also discover the strength
of human ingenuity. But though all men are not capable of learning every
art, yet it is a very sufficient proof of the common energy, that scarcely
an individual can be found, whose sagacity does not exert itself in some
particular art. Nor have they an energy and facility only in learning, but
also in inventing something new in every art, or in amplifying and
improving what they have learned from their predecessors. Though this
excited Plato erroneously to assert that such an apprehension is only a
recollection of what the soul knew in its preëxistent state, before it
came into the body, it constrains us, by the most cogent reasons, to
acknowledge that the principle of it is innate in the human mind. These
instances, therefore, plainly prove, that men are endued with a general
apprehension of reason and understanding. Yet it is such a universal
blessing, that every one for himself ought to acknowledge it as the
peculiar favour of God. To this gratitude the Author of nature himself
abundantly excites us, by his creation of idiots, in whom he represents
the state of the human soul without his illumination, which, though
natural to all, is nevertheless a gratuitous gift of his beneficence
towards every individual. But the invention and methodical teaching of
these arts, and the more intimate and excellent knowledge of them, which
is peculiar to a few, are no solid argument of general perspicacity; yet,
belonging to both the pious and the impious, they are justly numbered
among the natural talents.

XV. Whenever, therefore, we meet with heathen writers, let us learn from
that light of truth which is admirably displayed in their works, that the
human mind, fallen as it is, and corrupted from its integrity, is yet
invested and adorned by God with excellent talents. If we believe that the
Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we shall neither reject nor
despise the truth itself, wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to
insult the Spirit of God; for the gifts of the Spirit cannot be
undervalued without offering contempt and reproach to the Spirit himself.
Now, shall we deny the light of truth to the ancient lawyers, who have
delivered such just principles of civil order and polity? Shall we say
that the philosophers were blind in their exquisite contemplation and in
their scientific description of nature? Shall we say that those, who by
the art of logic have taught us to speak in a manner consistent with
reason, were destitute of understanding themselves? Shall we accuse those
of insanity, who by the study of medicine have been exercising their
industry for our advantage? What shall we say of all the mathematics?
Shall we esteem them the delirious ravings of madmen? On the contrary, we
shall not be able even to read the writings of the ancients on these
subjects without great admiration; we shall admire them, because we shall
be constrained to acknowledge them to be truly excellent. And shall we
esteem any thing laudable or excellent, which we do not recognize as
proceeding from God? Let us, then, be ashamed of such great ingratitude,
which was not to be charged on the heathen poets, who confessed that
philosophy, and legislation, and useful arts, were the inventions of their
gods. Therefore, since it appears that those whom the Scripture styles
“natural men,” ψυχικους, have discovered such acuteness and perspicacity
in the investigation of sublunary things, let us learn from such examples,
how many good qualities the Lord has left to the nature of man, since it
has been despoiled of what is truly good.

XVI. Yet let us not forget that these are most excellent gifts of the
Divine Spirit, which for the common benefit of mankind he dispenses to
whomsoever he pleases. For if it was necessary that the Spirit of God
should infuse into Bezaleel and Aholiab the understanding and skill
requisite for the construction of the tabernacle,(572) we need not wonder
if the knowledge of those things, which are most excellent in human life,
is said to be communicated to us by the Spirit of God. Nor is there any
reason for inquiring, what intercourse with the Spirit is enjoyed by the
impious who are entirely alienated from God. For when the Spirit of God is
said to dwell only in the faithful, that is to be understood of the Spirit
of sanctification, by whom we are consecrated as temples to God himself.
Yet it is equally by the energy of the same Spirit, that God replenishes,
actuates, and quickens all creatures, and that, according to the property
of each species which he has given it by the law of creation. Now, if it
has pleased the Lord that we should be assisted in physics, logic,
mathematics, and other arts and sciences, by the labour and ministry of
the impious, let us make use of them; lest, if we neglect to use the
blessings therein freely offered to us by God, we suffer the just
punishment of our negligence. But, lest any one should suppose a man to be
truly happy, when he is admitted to possess such powerful energies for the
discovery of truth relating to the elements of this world, it must
likewise be added, that all that faculty of understanding, and the
understanding which is the consequence of it, is, in the sight of God, a
fleeting and transitory thing, where there is not a solid foundation of
truth. For the sentiment of Augustine, with whom, as we have observed, the
Master of the Sentences and the Schoolmen have been constrained to
coincide, is strictly true—that as the gratuitous or supernatural gifts
were taken away from man after the fall, so these natural ones which
remained have been corrupted; not that they can be defiled in themselves
as proceeding from God, but because they have ceased to be pure to
polluted man, so that he can obtain no praise from them.

XVII. Let us conclude, therefore, that it is evident in all mankind, that
reason is a peculiar property of our nature, which distinguishes us from
the brute animals, as sense constitutes the difference between them and
things inanimate. For whereas some are born fools and idiots, that defect
obscures not the general goodness of God. Such a spectacle should rather
teach us that what we retain ought justly to be ascribed to his
indulgence; because, had it not been for his mercy to us, our defection
would have been followed by the total destruction of our nature. But
whereas some excel in penetration, others possess superior judgment, and
others have a greater aptitude to learn this or that art, in this variety
God displays his goodness to us, that no one may arrogate to himself as
his own what proceeds merely from the Divine liberality. For whence is it
that one is more excellent than another, unless it be to exalt in our
common nature the special goodness of God, which in the preterition of
many, proclaims that it is under an obligation to none? Moreover, God
inspires particular motions according to the vocation of each individual;
of which many examples occur in the book of the Judges, where the Spirit
of the Lord is said to “come upon” those whom he called to govern the
people.(573) Finally, in all important actions there is a special
instinct; for which reason it is said that Saul was followed by valiant
men, “whose hearts God had touched.”(574) And Samuel, when he predicts his
inauguration into the kingdom, thus expresses himself: “The Spirit of the
Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt be turned into another man.”(575)
And this is extended to the whole course of his government; as it is
afterwards narrated concerning David, that “the Spirit of the Lord came
upon him from that day forward.”(576) But the same expression is used in
other places in reference to particular impulses. Even in Homer, men are
said to excel in abilities, not only as Jupiter has distributed to every
one, but according as he guides him from day to day. And experience
clearly shows, since the most ingenious and sagacious of mankind
frequently stand still in profound astonishment, that the minds of men are
subject to the power and will of God to govern them every moment; for
which reason it is said, that “he taketh away the heart of the chief
people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where
there is no way.”(577) Yet in this diversity we perceive some remaining
marks of the Divine image, which distinguish the human race in general
from all the other creatures.

XVIII. We now proceed to show what human reason can discover, when it
comes to the kingdom of God, and to that spiritual wisdom, which consists
chiefly in three things—to know God, his paternal favour towards us, on
which depends our salvation, and the method of regulating our lives
according to the rule of the law. In the two first points, but especially
in the second, the most sagacious of mankind are blinder than moles. I do
not deny that some judicious and apposite observations concerning God may
be found scattered in the writings of the philosophers; but they always
betray a confused imagination. The Lord afforded them, as we have before
observed, some slight sense of his Divinity, that they might not be able
to plead ignorance as an excuse for impiety, and sometimes impelled them
to utter things, by the confession of which they might themselves be
convinced. But they saw the objects presented to their view in such a
manner, that by the sight they were not even directed to the truth, much
less did they arrive at it; just as a man, who is travelling by night
across a field, sees the coruscations of lightning extending for a moment
far and wide, but with such an evanescent view, that so far from being
assisted by them in proceeding on his journey, he is re‐absorbed in the
darkness of the night before he can advance a single step. Besides, those
few truths, with which they, as it were, fortuitously besprinkle their
books, with what numerous and monstrous falsehoods are they defiled!
Lastly, they never had the smallest idea of that certainty of the Divine
benevolence towards us, without which the human understanding must
necessarily be full of immense confusion. Human reason, then, neither
approaches, nor tends, nor directs its views towards this truth, to
understand who is the true God, or in what character he will manifest
himself to us.

XIX. But because, from our being intoxicated with a false opinion of our
own perspicacity, we do not without great difficulty suffer ourselves to
be persuaded, that in Divine things our reason is totally blind and
stupid, it will be better, I think, to confirm it by testimonies of
Scripture, than to support it by arguments. This is beautifully taught by
John, in that passage which I lately cited, where he says that, from the
beginning, “in God was life, and the life was the light of men. And the
light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”(578) He
indicates, indeed, that the soul of man is irradiated with a beam of
Divine light, so that it is never wholly destitute either of some little
flame, or at least of a spark of it; but he likewise suggests that it
cannot comprehend God by that illumination. And this because all his
sagacity, as far as respects the knowledge of God, is mere blindness. For
when the Spirit calls men “darkness,” he at once totally despoils them of
the faculty of spiritual understanding. Wherefore he asserts that
believers, who receive Christ, are “born not of blood, nor of the will of
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;”(579) as though he had said
that the flesh is not capable of such sublime wisdom as to conceive of God
and Divine things, without being illuminated by the Spirit of God; as
Christ testified that his being known by Peter was owing to a special
revelation of the Father.(580)

XX. If we were firmly persuaded of what, indeed, ought not to be
questioned, that our nature is destitute of all those things which our
heavenly Father confers on his elect through the Spirit of regeneration,
here would be no cause of hesitation. For this is the language of the
faithful by the mouth of the Prophet: “With thee is the fountain of life;
in thy light we shall see light.”(581) The Apostle confirms the same, when
he says that “no man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy
Ghost.”(582) And John the Baptist, perceiving the stupidity of his
disciples, exclaims, that “a man can receive nothing except it be given
him from above.”(583) That by “gift” he intends a special illumination,
not a common faculty of nature, is evident from the complaint which he
makes of the inefficacy of the many discourses in which he had recommended
Christ to his disciples. “I see that words are unavailing to instruct the
minds of men in Divine things, unless God give them understanding by his
Spirit.” And Moses also, when he reproaches the people for their
forgetfulness, yet at the same time remarks, that they cannot be wise in
the mysteries of God but by the Divine favour. He says, “Thine eyes have
seen the signs and those great miracles; yet the Lord hath not given you a
heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear.”(584) What more
would he express, if he had called them blockheads, destitute of all
understanding in the consideration of the works of God? Whence the Lord,
by the Prophet, promises, as an instance of peculiar grace, that he will
give the Israelites “a heart to know” him;(585) plainly suggesting that
the mind of man has no spiritual wisdom any further than as it is
enlightened by him. Christ also has clearly confirmed this by his own
declaration, that no man can come to him, except the Father draw him.(586)
What! is he not himself the lively image of the Father, representing to us
all “the brightness of his glory”?(587) Therefore, he could not better
manifest the extent of our capacity for the knowledge of God, than when he
affirms that we have no eyes to behold his image where it is so plainly
exhibited. What! did he not descend to the earth in order to discover to
men the will of the Father? And did he not faithfully fulfil the object of
his mission? He certainly did; but his preaching is not at all
efficacious, unless the way to the heart be laid open by the internal
teaching of the Spirit. Therefore, none come to him but they who have
heard and learned of the Father. What is the nature of this hearing and
learning? It is when the Spirit, by a wonderful and peculiar power, forms
the ears to hear and the mind to understand. And lest this should appear
strange, he cites the prophecy of Isaiah, where, predicting the
restoration of the Church, he says, that all those who shall be saved
“shall be taught of the Lord.” If God there predicts something peculiar
concerning his elect, it is evident that he speaks not of that kind of
instruction which is common also to the impious and profane. It must be
concluded, therefore, that there is no admission into the kingdom of God,
but for him whose mind has been renewed by the illumination of the Holy
Spirit. But Paul expresses himself more clearly than all the others.
Having professedly entered upon this argument, after he has condemned all
human wisdom as folly and vanity, and even reduced it to nothing, he comes
to this conclusion: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned.”(588) Whom does he call the
natural man? him who depends on the light of nature. He, I say, has no
apprehension of the mysteries of God. Why so? because through slothfulness
he neglects them? Nay, even his utmost endeavours can avail nothing,
“because they are spiritually discerned.” This implies, that being
entirely concealed from human perspicacity, they are discovered only by
the revelation of the Spirit; so that where the illumination of the Spirit
is not enjoyed, they are deemed foolishness itself. He had before extolled
“the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”(589) above the
capacity of our eyes, our ears, and our minds; he had even asserted that
human wisdom was a kind of veil, by which the mind is prevented from a
discovery of God. What do we want more? The Apostle pronounces that “God
hath made foolish the wisdom of this world;”(590) and shall we ascribe to
it such a degree of sagacity, as would enable it to penetrate to God, and
to the most secret recesses of the heavenly kingdom? Far be from us such
extreme stupidity.

XXI. That which he here detracts from men, he in another place ascribes
exclusively to God. Praying for the Ephesians, he says, “May God, the
Father of glory, give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.”(591)
You hear now that all wisdom and revelation is the gift of God. What
follows? “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened.” If they need
a new revelation, they are certainly blind of themselves. It follows,
“that ye may know what is the hope of your calling,” &c. He confesses,
then, that the minds of men are not naturally capable of so great
knowledge, as to know their own calling. Nor let any Pelagian here object,
that God assists this stupidity or ignorance, when, by the teaching of his
word, he directs the human understanding to that which, without a guide,
it never could have attained. For David had the law, in which all
desirable wisdom was comprised: yet, not content with this, he requested
that his eyes might be opened to consider the mysteries of that law.(592)
By this expression he clearly signifies, that the sun arises on the earth,
where the word of God shines on mankind; but that they derive little
advantage from it, till he himself either gives them eyes or opens them,
who is therefore called “the Father of lights;”(593) because wherever he
shines not by his Spirit, every thing is covered with darkness. Thus also
the Apostles were rightly and abundantly taught by the best of all
teachers: yet, if they had not needed the Spirit of truth(594) to instruct
their minds in that very doctrine which they had previously heard, they
would not have been commanded to expect him. If, in imploring any favour
of God, we confess our need, and if his promising it argues our poverty,
let no man hesitate to acknowledge, that he is incapable of understanding
the mysteries of God, any further than he has been illuminated by Divine
grace. He who attributes to himself more understanding, is so much the
blinder, because he does not perceive and acknowledge his blindness.

XXII. It remains for us to notice the third branch of knowledge, relating
to the rule for the proper regulation of our life, which we truly
denominate the knowledge of works of righteousness; in which the human
mind discovers somewhat more acuteness than in the two former particulars.
For the Apostle declares, that “when the Gentiles, which have not the law,
do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law,
are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
while accusing or else excusing one another.”(595) If the Gentiles have
naturally the righteousness of the law engraven on their minds, we
certainly cannot say that they are altogether ignorant how they ought to
live. And no sentiment is more commonly admitted, than that man is
sufficiently instructed in a right rule of life by that natural law of
which the Apostle there speaks. But let us examine for what purpose this
knowledge of the law was given to men; and then it will appear how far it
can conduct them towards the mark of reason and truth. This is evident
also from the words of Paul, if we observe the connection of the passage.
He had just before said, “As many as have sinned without law, shall also
perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged
by the law.” Because it might appear absurd that the Gentiles should
perish without any previous knowledge, he immediately subjoins that their
conscience supplies the place of a law to them, and is therefore
sufficient for their just condemnation. The end of the law of nature,
therefore, is, that man may be rendered inexcusable. Nor will it be
improperly defined in this manner—That it is a sentiment of the conscience
sufficiently discerning between good and evil, to deprive men of the
pretext of ignorance, while they are convicted even by their own
testimony. Such is the indulgence of man to himself, that in the
perpetration of evil actions he always gladly diverts his mind as much as
he possibly can from all sense of sin; which seems to have induced Plato
to suppose, that no sin is committed but through ignorance. This remark of
his would be correct, if the hypocrisy of men could go so far in the
concealment of their vices, as that the mind would have no consciousness
of its guilt before God. But since the sinner, though he endeavours to
evade the knowledge of good and evil imprinted on his mind, is frequently
brought back to it, and so is not permitted to shut his eyes, but
compelled, whether he will or not, sometimes to open them, there is no
truth in the assertion, that he sins only through ignorance.

XXIII. Themistius, another philosopher, with more truth, teaches that the
human understanding is very rarely deceived in the universal definition,
or in the essence of a thing; but that it falls into error, when it
proceeds further, and descends to the consideration of particular cases.
There is no man, who, if he be interrogated in a general way, will not
affirm homicide to be criminal; but he who conspires the death of his
enemy, deliberates on it as a good action. The adulterer will condemn
adultery in general; but will privately flatter himself in his own. Here
lies the ignorance—when a man, proceeding to a particular case, forgets
the rule which he had just fixed as a general position. This subject is
very excellently treated by Augustine, in his exposition of the first
verse of the fifty‐seventh Psalm. The observation of Themistius, however,
is not applicable to all cases; for sometimes the turpitude of the crime
so oppresses the conscience of the sinner, that, no longer imposing on
himself under the false image of virtue, he rushes into evil with the
knowledge of his mind and the consent of his will. This state of mind
produced these expressions, which we find in a heathen poet: “I see the
better path, and approve it; I pursue the worse.” Wherefore the
distinction of Aristotle between incontinence and intemperance appears to
me to be highly judicious. Where incontinence predominates, he says, that
by the perturbation of the affections or passions, the mind is deprived of
particular knowledge, so that in its own evil actions it observes not that
criminality which it generally discovers in similar actions committed by
other persons; and that when the perturbation has subsided, penitence
immediately succeeds; that intemperance is not extinguished or broken by a
sense of sin, but, on the contrary, obstinately persists in the choice of
evil which it has made.

XXIV. Now, when you hear of a universal judgment in man to discriminate
between good and evil, you must not imagine that it is every where sound
and perfect. For if the hearts of men be furnished with a capacity of
discriminating what is just and unjust, only that they may not excuse
themselves with the plea of ignorance, it is not at all necessary for them
to discover the truth in every point; it is quite sufficient if they
understand so much that they can avail themselves of no subterfuge, but
being convicted by the testimony of their own conscience, even now begin
to tremble at the tribunal of God. And if we will examine our reason by
the Divine law, which is the rule of perfect righteousness, we shall find
in how many respects it is blind. It certainly is far from reaching the
principal points in the first table; such as relate to trust in God,
ascribing to him the praise of goodness and righteousness, the invocation
of his name, and the true observation of the Sabbath. What mind, relying
on its natural powers, ever imagined that the legitimate worship of God
consisted in these and similar things? For when profane men intend to
worship God, though they are recalled a hundred times from their vain and
nugatory fancies, yet they are always relapsing into them again. They deny
that sacrifices are pleasing to God, unaccompanied with sincerity of
heart; thereby testifying that they have some ideas concerning the
spiritual worship of God, which, nevertheless, they immediately corrupt by
their false inventions. For it is impossible ever to persuade them that
every thing is true which the law prescribes concerning it. Shall I say
that the mind of man excels in discernment, which can neither understand
of itself, nor hearken to good instructions? Of the precepts of the second
table it has a little clearer understanding, since they are more
intimately connected with the preservation of civil society among men.
Though even here it is sometimes found to be deficient; for to every noble
mind it appears very absurd to submit to an unjust and imperious
despotism, if it be possible by any means to resist it. A uniform decision
of human reason is, that it is the mark of a servile and abject
disposition patiently to bear it, and of an honest and ingenuous mind to
shake it off. Nor is the revenging of injuries esteemed a vice among the
philosophers. But the Lord, condemning such excessive haughtiness of mind,
prescribes to his people that patience which is deemed dishonourable among
men. But in the universal observation of the law, the censure of
concupiscence wholly escapes our notice. For the natural man cannot be
brought to acknowledge the disorders of his inward affections. The light
of nature is smothered, before it approaches the first entrance of this
abyss. For when the philosophers represent the inordinate affections of
the mind as vices, they intend those which appear and manifest themselves
in the grosser external actions; but those corrupt desires which more
secretly stimulate the mind, they consider as nothing.

XXV. Wherefore, as Plato has before been deservedly censured for imputing
all sins to ignorance, so also we must reject the opinion of those who
maintain that all sins proceed from deliberate malice and pravity. For we
too much experience how frequently we fall into error even when our
intention is good. Our reason is overwhelmed with deceptions in so many
forms, is obnoxious to so many errors, stumbles at so many impediments,
and is embarrassed in so many difficulties, that it is very far from being
a certain guide. Paul shows its deficiency in the sight of the Lord in
every part of our life, when he denies “that we are sufficient of
ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves.”(596) He does not speak of
the will or of the affections, but he also divests us of every good
thought, that we may not suppose it possible for our minds to conceive how
any action may be rightly performed. Are all our industry, perspicacity,
understanding, and care so depraved, that we cannot conceive or meditate
any thing that is right in the sight of God? To us, who do not contentedly
submit to be stripped of the acuteness of our reason, which we esteem our
most valuable endowment, this appears too harsh; but in the estimation of
the Holy Spirit, who knows that all the thoughts of the wisest of men are
vain,(597) and who plainly pronounces every imagination of the human heart
to be only evil,(598) such a representation is consistent with the
strictest truth. If whatever our mind conceives, agitates, undertakes, and
performs, be invariably evil, how can we entertain a thought of
undertaking any thing acceptable to God, by whom nothing is accepted but
holiness and righteousness? Thus it is evident that the reason of our
mind, whithersoever it turns, is unhappily obnoxious to vanity. David was
conscious to himself of this imbecility, when he prayed that understanding
might be given him, to enable him rightly to learn the commandments of the
Lord.(599) For his desire to obtain a new understanding implies the total
insufficiency of his own. And this he does not once, but almost ten times
in one Psalm he repeats the same petition—a repetition indicating the
greatness of the necessity which urges him thus to pray. What David
requests for himself alone, Paul frequently supplicates for the churches
at large. “We do not cease to pray for you,” says he, “and to desire, that
ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and
spiritual understanding; that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all
pleasing.”(600) Whenever he represents that as a blessing of God, we
should remember that he thereby testifies it to be placed beyond the
ability of man. Augustine so far acknowledges this defect of reason in
understanding the things of God, that he thinks the grace of illumination
no less necessary to our minds than the light of the sun to our eyes. And
not content with this, he subjoins the following correction—that we
ourselves open our eyes to behold the light, but that the eyes of our
minds remain shut, unless they are opened by the Lord. Nor does the
Scripture teach us that our minds are illuminated only on one day, so as
to enable them to see afterwards without further assistance; for the
passage just quoted from Paul(601) relates to continual advances and
improvements. And this is clearly expressed by David in these words: “With
my whole heart have I sought thee; O let me not wander from thy
commandments.” For after having been regenerated, and made a more than
common progress in true piety, he still confesses his need of perpetual
direction every moment, lest he should decline from that knowledge which
he possessed. Therefore, in another place, he prays for the renewal of a
right spirit, which he had lost by his sin;(602) because it belongs to the
same God to restore that which he originally bestowed, but of which we
have been for a time deprived.

XXVI. We must now proceed to the examination of the will, to which
principally belongs the liberty of choice; for we have before seen that
election belongs rather to the will than to the understanding. In the
first place, that the opinion advanced by philosophers, and received by
general consent, that all things, by a natural instinct, desire what is
good, may not be supposed to prove the rectitude of the human will, let us
observe, that the power of free choice is not to be contemplated in that
kind of appetite, which proceeds rather from the inclination of the nature
than from the deliberation of the mind. For even the schoolmen confess
that there is no action of free choice, but when reason sees and considers
the rival objects presented to it; meaning that the object of appetite
must be such as is the subject of choice, and that deliberation precedes
and introduces choice. And in fact, if you examine the desire of good
which is natural to man, you will find that he has it in common with the
brutes. For they also desire to be happy, and pursue every agreeable
appearance which attracts their senses. But man neither rationally chooses
as the object of his pursuit that which is truly good for him, according
to the excellency of his immortal nature, nor takes the advice of reason,
nor duly exerts his understanding; but without reason, without reflection,
follows his natural inclination, like the herds of the field. It is
therefore no argument for the liberty of the will, that man is led by
natural instinct to desire that which is good; but it is necessary that he
discern what is good according to right reason; that as soon as he knows
it, he choose it; and as soon as he has chosen it, he pursue it. To remove
every difficulty, we must advert to two instances of false argumentation.
For the desire here intended is not a proper motion of the will, but a
natural inclination; and the good in question relates not to virtue or
righteousness, but to condition; as when we say a man is well or in good
health. Lastly, though man has the strongest desire after what is good,
yet he does not pursue it. There is no man to whom eternal felicity is
unwelcome, yet no man aspires to it without the influence of the Spirit.
Since, therefore, the desire of happiness natural to man furnishes no
argument for the liberty of the will, any more than a tendency in metals
and stones towards the perfection of their nature argues liberty in them,
let us consider, in some other particulars, whether the will be in every
part so entirely vitiated and depraved that it can produce nothing but
what is evil; or whether it retain any small part uninjured which may be
the source of good desires.

XXVII. Those who attribute it to the first grace of God, that we are able
to will effectually, seem, on the contrary, to imply that the soul has a
faculty of spontaneously aspiring to what is good, but that it is too weak
to rise into a solid affection, or to excite any endeavour. And there is
no doubt that the schoolmen have in general embraced this opinion, which
was borrowed from Origen and some of the fathers, since they frequently
consider man in things purely natural, as they express themselves,
according to the description given by the Apostle in these words: “The
good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. To
will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find
not.”(603) But this is a miserable and complete perversion of the argument
which Paul is pursuing in that passage. For he is treating of the
Christian conflict, which he more briefly hints at to the Galatians; the
conflict which the faithful perpetually experience within themselves in
the contention between the flesh and the spirit. Now, the spirit is not
from nature, but from regeneration. But that the Apostle speaks concerning
the regenerate, is evident from his assertion, that in himself dwelt
nothing good, being immediately followed by an explanation that he meant
it of his flesh. And therefore he affirms that it is not he that does
evil, but sin that dwells in him. What is the meaning of this correction,
“in me, that is, in my flesh?” It is as if he had expressed himself in the
following manner: No good resides in me originating from myself, for in my
flesh can be found nothing that is good. Hence follows that form of
exculpation: “I do no evil, but sin that dwelleth in me;”(604) which is
inapplicable to any but the regenerate, who, with the prevailing bias of
their souls, aim at what is good. Now, the conclusion which is subjoined
places all this in a clear point of view: “I delight,” says he, “in the
law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members,
warring against the law of my mind.”(605) Who has such a dissension in
himself, but he who, being regenerated by the Divine Spirit, carries about
with him the relics of his flesh? Therefore Augustine, though he had at
one time supposed that discourse to relate to the natural state of man,
retracted his interpretation, as false and inconsistent. And, indeed, if
we allow that men destitute of grace have some motions towards true
goodness, though ever so feeble, what answer shall we give to the Apostle,
who denies that we are sufficient of ourselves to entertain even a good
thought?(606) What reply shall we make to the Lord, who pronounces, by the
mouth of Moses, that every imagination of the human heart is only
evil?(607) Since they have stumbled on a false interpretation of one
passage, therefore, there is no reason why we should dwell on their
opinion. Rather let us receive this declaration of Christ, “Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin.”(608) We are all sinners by nature;
therefore we are all held under the yoke of sin. Now, if the whole man be
subject to the dominion of sin, the will, which is the principal seat of
it, must necessarily be bound with the firmest bonds. Nor would there
otherwise be any consistency in the assertion of Paul, “that it is God
that worketh in us to will,”(609) if any will preceded the grace of the
Spirit. Farewell, then, all the idle observations of many writers
concerning preparation; for although the faithful sometimes petition that
their hearts may be conformed to the Divine law, as David does in many
places,(610) yet it should be remarked that even this desire of praying
originates from God. This we may gather from the language of David; for
when he wishes a clean heart to be created within him,(611) he certainly
does not arrogate to himself the beginning of such a creation. Let us
rather, therefore, attend to this advice of Augustine: “God will prevent
you in all things: do you also sometimes prevent his wrath.” How? “Confess
that you have all those things from God; that whatever good you have, it
is from him; but whatever evil, from yourself.” And a little after,
“Nothing is ours, but sin.”

Chapter III. Every Thing That Proceeds From The Corrupt Nature Of Man
Worthy Of Condemnation.

But man cannot be better known in either faculty of his soul, than when he
is represented in those characters by which the Scripture has
distinguished him. If he be completely described in these words of Christ,
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh,”(612) as it is easy to prove,
it is evident that he is a very miserable creature. For, according to the
testimony of the Apostle, “to be carnally minded is death, because the
carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of
God, neither indeed can be.”(613) Is the flesh so perverse, that, with all
its affections, it entertains a secret hatred against God? that it cannot
consent to the righteousness of the Divine law? in a word, that it can
produce nothing but what tends to death? Now, grant, that in the nature of
man there is nothing but flesh, and elicit any good from it, if you can.
But the name of flesh, it will be said, pertains only to the sensual, and
not to the superior faculties of the soul. This is abundantly refuted by
the words of Christ and of the Apostle. For the argument of our Lord is,
that man must be born again, because he is flesh. He does not teach a new
birth in regard to the body. Now, a new birth of the soul requires not a
correction of some portion of it, but an entire renovation. And this is
confirmed by the antithesis in both places; for there is such a comparison
between the flesh and the spirit, that there is no medium left. Therefore,
every thing in man that is not spiritual, is, according to this mode of
reasoning, denominated carnal. But we have nothing of the spirit, except
by regeneration. Whatever, therefore, we have from nature is carnal. But
if on that point there could otherwise be any doubt, we have it removed by
Paul, when, after a description of the old man, which he had asserted to
be “corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,”(614) he directs us to “be
renewed in the spirit of our mind.” You see that he places unlawful and
corrupt affections not only in the sensitive part, but also in the mind
itself, and, therefore, requires a renovation of it. And, indeed, he had
just before drawn such a picture of human nature, as showed us to be in
every part corrupted and depraved. For his description of all the
Gentiles, as “walking in the vanity of their mind, having the
understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the
ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart,”(615)
is undoubtedly applicable to all those whom the Lord has not yet renewed
to the rectitude of his wisdom and righteousness. This is still more
evident from the comparison soon after introduced, where he reminds the
faithful, that they “have not so learned Christ.” For from these words we
conclude, that the grace of Christ is the only remedy, by which we can be
liberated from that blindness, and from the evils consequent upon it. And
this is what Isaiah had prophesied concerning the kingdom of Christ, when
he predicted that the Lord would be “an everlasting light” to his Church,
whilst at the same time “darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness
the people.”(616) When he declares, that the light of God will only arise
upon the Church, beyond the limits of the Church he certainly leaves
nothing but darkness and blindness. I will not particularly recite all the
passages which are to be found, especially in the Psalms and in the
Prophets, concerning the vanity of man. It is a striking observation of
David, that “to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than
vanity.”(617) It is a severe condemnation of his understanding, when all
the thoughts which proceed from it are derided as foolish, frivolous, mad,
and perverse.

II. Equally severe is the condemnation of the heart, when it is called
“deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.”(618) But as I study
brevity, I shall be content with citing a single passage, which, however,
will resemble a very lucid mirror, in which we may behold at full length
the image of our nature. For the Apostle, when he wishes to demolish the
arrogance of mankind, does it by these testimonies: “There is none
righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none
that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are
together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used
deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of
cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction
and misery are in their ways; there is no fear of God before their
eyes.”(619) In this terrible manner he inveighs, not against particular
individuals, but against all the posterity of Adam. He does not declaim
against the depraved manners of one or another age, but accuses the
perpetual corruption of our nature. For his design in that passage is not
simply to rebuke men, in order that they may repent, but rather to teach
us that all men are overwhelmed with an inevitable calamity, from which
they can never emerge unless they are extricated by the mercy of God. As
this could not be proved unless it were evinced by the ruin and
destruction of our nature, he has adduced these testimonies, which
demonstrate our nature to be totally ruined. Let this, then, be admitted,
that men are such as they are here described, not only by corrupt habits,
but also by a depravity of nature; for otherwise the reasoning of the
Apostle could not be supported, “that there is no salvation for man but
from the mercy of God; since in himself he is in a ruined and desperate
condition.” Here I shall not attempt to establish the application of the
testimonies, to preclude the appearance of their being improperly
introduced. I shall treat them just as if they had been originally uttered
by Paul, and not quoted from the Prophets. He divests man first of
righteousness, that is, integrity and purity, and then of understanding.
Defect of understanding is proved by apostasy from God, the seeking of
whom is the first step in the path of wisdom; but this loss must
necessarily befall those who have revolted from God. He adds, that all
have gone out of the way, and are become altogether corrupt, that there is
not one that does good. Then he subjoins the flagitious crimes, with which
they, who are once abandoned to iniquity, contaminate all the members of
their bodies. Lastly, he declares them to be destitute of the fear of God,
the rule by which all our steps ought to be directed. If these are the
hereditary characters of mankind, in vain do we seek in our nature for any
thing that is good. I grant, indeed, that all these crimes are not
exhibited in every individual; yet it cannot be denied that this monster
lurks in the hearts of all. For as the body, which already contains within
itself the cause and matter of a disease, although it has yet no sensation
of pain, cannot be said to enjoy good health, neither can the soul be
esteemed healthy, while it is full of such moral maladies; although this
similitude will not correspond in every particular; for in the body,
however diseased, there remains the vigour of life; but the soul, immersed
in this gulf of iniquity, is not only the subject of vices, but totally
destitute of every thing that is good.

III. A question, nearly the same as we have already answered, here
presents itself to us again. For in all ages there have been some persons,
who, from the mere dictates of nature, have devoted their whole lives to
the pursuit of virtue. And though many errors might perhaps be discovered
in their conduct, yet by their pursuit of virtue they afforded a proof,
that there was some degree of purity in their nature. The value attached
to virtues of such a description before God, we shall more fully discuss
when we come to treat of the merits of works; yet it must be stated also
in this place, so far as is necessary for the elucidation of the present
subject. These examples, then, seem to teach us that we should not
consider human nature to be totally corrupted; since, from its instinctive
bias, some men have not only been eminent for noble actions, but have
uniformly conducted themselves in a most virtuous manner through the whole
course of their lives. But here we ought to remember, that amidst this
corruption of nature there is some room for Divine grace, not to purify
it, but internally to restrain its operations. For should the Lord permit
the minds of all men to give up the reins to every lawless passion, there
certainly would not be an individual in the world, whose actions would not
evince all the crimes, for which Paul condemns human nature in general, to
be most truly applicable to him. For can you except yourself from the
number of those whose feet are swift to shed blood, whose hands are
polluted with rapine and murder, whose throats are like open sepulchres,
whose tongues are deceitful, whose lips are envenomed, whose works are
useless, iniquitous, corrupt, and deadly, whose souls are estranged from
God, the inmost recesses of whose hearts are full of pravity, whose eyes
are insidiously employed, whose minds are elated with insolence—in a word,
all whose powers are prepared for the commission of atrocious and
innumerable crimes? If every soul be subject to all these monstrous vices,
as the Apostle fearlessly pronounces, we clearly see what would be the
consequence, if the Lord should suffer the human passions to go all the
lengths to which they are inclined. There is no furious beast, that would
be agitated with such ungovernable rage; there is no river, though ever so
rapid and violent, that would overflow its boundaries with such
impetuosity. In his elect, the Lord heals these maladies by a method which
we shall hereafter describe. In others, he restrains them, only to prevent
their ebullitions so far as he sees to be necessary for the preservation
of the universe. Hence some by shame, and some by fear of the laws, are
prevented from running into many kinds of pollutions, though they cannot
in any great degree dissemble their impurity; others, because they think
that a virtuous course of life is advantageous, entertain some languid
desires after it; others go further, and display more than common
excellence, that by their majesty they may confine the vulgar to their
duty. Thus God by his providence restrains the perverseness of our nature
from breaking out into external acts, but does not purify it within.

IV. But it may be said, the difficulty is not yet removed. For either we
must esteem Camillus to be exactly similar to Catiline, or in Camillus we
shall have an example that nature, if it be studiously cultivated, is not
altogether destitute of goodness. I grant, indeed, that the virtues
displayed in Camillus were gifts of God, and if considered in themselves,
appear justly worthy of commendation: but how will they be proofs of any
natural goodness in him? To establish this, must we not recur to the
heart, and argue, that if a natural man was eminent for such integrity of
manners, human nature is not destitute of ability for the pursuit of
virtue? But what if his heart was depraved and perverted, and followed any
thing rather than the path of rectitude? And that it was such, if you
concede that he was a natural man, is beyond all doubt. What ability,
then, will you attribute to human nature for the pursuit of virtue, if,
with the greatest appearance of integrity, it is discovered to be always
tending to corruption? Therefore, as you will not commend a man for
virtue, whose vices have only counterfeited the external form of virtue,
so you must not attribute to the human will a power of desiring what is
right, as long as it continues fixed in its perverseness. The most certain
and easy solution of this question, however, is, that those virtues are
not the common properties of nature, but the peculiar graces of God, which
he dispenses in great variety, and in a certain degree to men that are
otherwise profane. For which reason we hesitate not, in common speech, to
call the nature of one man good, and of another depraved. Yet we still
include both in the universal state of human depravity; but we signify
what peculiar grace God has conferred on the one, with which he has not
deigned to favour the other. When he determined to exalt Saul to the
kingdom, he made him, as it were, a new man; and this is the reason why
Plato, alluding to the fable of Homer, says, that the sons of kings are
formed with some distinguishing singularity of character; because God,
consulting the benefit of mankind, frequently furnishes with an heroic
nature those whom he destines to hold the reins of empire; and from this
source have proceeded all the exploits of great heroes which are
celebrated in history. The same judgment must be formed concerning those
also who are in a private station. But because every one who has risen to
great eminence has been impelled by his ambition, which defiles all
virtues, and deprives them of all excellence in the Divine view, whatever
may be apparently laudable in ungodly men, ought not to be esteemed at all
meritorious. Besides, the chief branch of rectitude is wanting, where
there is no concern to display the glory of God: of this principle all are
destitute whom he has not regenerated by his Spirit. Nor is it in vain
that Isaiah says, that “the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall rest
upon” Christ;(620) which teaches us, that all who are alienated from
Christ are destitute of that “fear of the Lord” which is “the beginning of
wisdom.”(621) The virtues which deceive us by their vain and specious
appearance, will be applauded in civil courts, and in the common
estimation of mankind; but before the celestial tribunal they will possess
no value to merit the reward of righteousness.

V. The will, therefore, is so bound by the slavery of sin, that it cannot
excite itself, much less devote itself to any thing good; for such a
disposition is the beginning of a conversion to God, which in the
Scriptures is attributed solely to Divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays to
the Lord to convert or turn him, if he would have him to be turned.(622)
Whence the Prophet, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual
redemption of the faithful, says, “The Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and
ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he;”(623)
alluding to the strong fetters with which the sinner is bound as long as
he is deserted by the Lord, and continues under the yoke of the devil.
Nevertheless there still remains the faculty of will, which with the
strongest propensity is inclined to and rushes into sin; for when man
subjected himself to this necessity, he was not deprived of his will, but
of soundness of will. Bernard properly observes, that we all have a power
to will; but that to will what is good, is an advantage; to will what is
evil, a defect. Therefore simply to will belongs to man; to will what is
evil, to corrupt nature; to will what is good, to grace. Now, when I
assert that the will, being deprived of its liberty, is necessarily drawn
or led into evil, I should wonder, if any one considered it as a harsh
expression, since it has nothing in it absurd, nor is it unsanctioned by
the custom of good men. It offends those who know not how to distinguish
between necessity and compulsion. But if any one should ask them, whether
God is not necessarily good, and whether the devil is not necessarily
evil,—what answer will they make? For there is such a close connection
between the goodness of God and his Deity, that his being God is not more
necessary than his being good. But the devil is by his fall so alienated
from communion with all that is good, that he can do nothing but what is
evil. But if any one should sacrilegiously object, that little praise is
due to God for his goodness, which he is constrained to preserve,—shall we
not readily reply, that his inability to do evil arises from his infinite
goodness, and not from the impulse of violence? Therefore, if a necessity
of doing well impairs not the liberty of the Divine will in doing well; if
the devil, who cannot but do evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; who then
will assert that man sins less voluntarily, because he is under a
necessity of sinning? This necessity Augustine every where maintains; and
even when he was pressed with the cavils of Celestius, who tried to throw
an odium on this doctrine, he confidently expressed himself in these
terms: “By means of liberty it came to pass that man fell into sin; but
now the penal depravity consequent on it, instead of liberty, has
introduced necessity.” And whenever the mention of this subject occurs, he
hesitates not to speak in this manner of the necessary servitude of sin.
We must therefore observe this grand point of distinction, that man,
having been corrupted by his fall, sins voluntarily, not with reluctance
or constraint; with the strongest propensity of disposition, not with
violent coercion; with the bias of his own passions, and not with external
compulsion: yet such is the pravity of his nature, that he cannot be
excited and biassed to any thing but what is evil. If this be true, there
is no impropriety in affirming, that he is under a necessity of sinning.
Bernard, subscribing to what is said by Augustine, thus expresses himself:
“Among all the animals, man alone is free; and yet, by the intervention of
sin, he also suffers a species of violence; but from the will, not from
nature, so that he is not thereby deprived of his innate liberty.” For
what is voluntary is also free. And a little after: “The will being, by I
know not what corrupt and surprising means, changed for the worse, is
itself the author of the necessity to which it is subject; so that neither
necessity, being voluntary, can excuse the will, nor the will, being
fascinated, can exclude necessity.” For this necessity is in some measure
voluntary. Afterwards he says, that we are oppressed with a yoke, but no
other than that of a voluntary servitude; that therefore our servitude
renders us miserable, and our will renders us inexcusable; because the
will, when it was free, made itself the slave of sin. At length he
concludes, “Thus the soul, in a certain strange and evil manner, under
this kind of voluntary and free yet pernicious necessity, is both enslaved
and free; enslaved by necessity, free by its will; and, what is more
wonderful and more miserable, it is guilty, because free; and enslaved
wherein it is guilty; and so therein enslaved wherein it is free.” From
these passages the reader clearly perceives that I am teaching no novel
doctrine, but what was long ago advanced by Augustine, with the universal
consent of pious men, and which for nearly a thousand years after was
confined to the cloisters of monks. But Lombard, for want of knowing how
to distinguish necessity from coaction, gave rise to a pernicious error.

VI. It is necessary, on the other hand, to consider the remedy of Divine
grace, by which the depravity of nature is corrected and healed. For since
the Lord, in the assistance which he affords us, bestows on us that which
we need, an exhibition of the nature of his work in us will immediately
discover the nature of our necessity. When the Apostle tells the
Philippians, that he is “confident that he which hath begun a good work in
them will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ;”(624) by the beginning
of a good work he undoubtedly designs the commencement of conversion,
which takes place in the will. Therefore God begins the good work in us by
exciting in our hearts a love, desire, and ardent pursuit of
righteousness; or, to speak more properly, by bending, forming, and
directing our hearts towards righteousness; but he completes it, by
confirming us to perseverance. That no one may cavil, that the good work
is begun by the Lord, inasmuch as the will, which is weak of itself, is
assisted by him, the Spirit declares in another place how far the ability
of the will reaches, when left to itself. “A new heart also,” says he,
“will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take
away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of
flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes.”(625) Who will assert that the infirmity of the human will is
only strengthened by assistance, to enable it efficaciously to aspire to
the choice of that which is good, when it actually needs a total
transformation and renovation? If there be in a stone any softness, which,
by some application, being made more tender, would be flexible in every
direction, then I will not deny the flexibility of the human heart to the
obedience of rectitude, provided its imperfections are supplied by the
grace of God. But if, by this similitude, the Lord intended to show that
no good will ever be extracted from our hearts, unless they are entirely
renewed, let us not divide between him and us, what he claims exclusively
to himself. If, therefore, when God converts us to the pursuit of
rectitude, this change is like the transformation of a stone into flesh,
it follows, that whatever belongs to our own will is removed, and what
succeeds to it is entirely from God. The will, I say, is removed, not
considered as the will; because, in the conversion of man, the properties
of our original nature remain entire. I assert also, that it is created
anew, not that the will then begins to exist, but that it is then
converted from an evil into a good one. This I affirm to be done entirely
by God, because, according to the testimony of the same Apostle, “we are
not sufficient” even “to think.”(626) Therefore he elsewhere declares, not
merely that God assists the infirmity of our will, or corrects its
depravity, but that he “worketh in us to will.”(627) Whence it is easy to
infer what I have already remarked, that whatever good is in the human
will, is the work of pure grace. In the same sense he elsewhere pronounces
that it is “God which worketh all in all.”(628) For in that place he is
not discussing the government of the universe, but asserting that the
praise of all the excellences found in the faithful belongs to God alone.
And by using the word “all,” he certainly makes God the author of
spiritual life from its commencement even to its termination. This is the
same as he had before taught in other words, declaring that the faithful
are “of God in Christ;”(629) where he evidently intends the new creation,
by which what belonged to our common nature is abolished. For we must here
understand an implied contrast between Adam and Christ, which he states
more plainly in another place, where he teaches that “we are the
workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God
hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”(630) For by this
argument he designs to prove that our salvation is gratuitous, because the
beginning of all good is from the second creation, which we obtain in
Christ. Now, if we possessed any ability, though ever so small, we should
also have some portion of merit. But to annihilate all our pretensions, he
argues that we have merited nothing, because “we are created in Christ
Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained;” in which
expressions he again signifies that all the parts of good works, even from
the first inclination of the mind, are entirely from God. For this reason
the Psalmist, after having said that “he (God) hath made us,” that there
may be no division of the work, immediately subjoins, “and not we
ourselves.”(631) That he speaks of regeneration, which is the commencement
of the spiritual life, is evident from the context, where it follows
immediately after, that “we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.”
We see, then, that not content with having simply attributed to God the
praise of our salvation, he expressly excludes us from all fellowship with
him; as though he would say, that man has not even the smallest particle
remaining in which he can glory, because all is of God.

VII. But there may be some, who will concede that the will, being, of its
own spontaneous inclination, averse to what is good, is converted solely
by the power of the Lord; yet in such a manner, that being previously
prepared, it has also its own share in the work; that grace, as Augustine
teaches, precedes every good work, the will following grace, not leading
it, being its companion, not its guide. This unobjectionable observation
of that holy man, Peter Lombard preposterously wrests to an erroneous
meaning. Now, I contend that both in the words of the Prophet which I have
cited, and in other passages, these two things are clearly signified, that
the Lord corrects our depraved will, or rather removes it, and of himself
introduces a good one in its place. As it is preceded by grace, I allow
you to style it an attendant; but since its reformation is the work of the
Lord, it is wrong to attribute to man a voluntary obedience in following
the guidance of grace. Therefore it is not a proper expression of
Chrysostom, that grace is able to effect nothing without the will, nor the
will without grace; as if grace did not produce the will itself, as we
have just seen from Paul. Nor was it the intention of Augustine, when he
called the human will the companion of grace, to assign to it any
secondary office next to grace in the good work; but with a view to refute
the nefarious dogma broached by Pelagius, who made the prime cause of
salvation to consist in human merit, he contends, what was sufficient for
his present argument, that grace is prior to all merit; omitting, at this
time, the other question concerning the perpetual efficiency of grace,
which is admirably treated by him on other occasions. For when he
frequently says, that the Lord precedes the unwilling that he may will,
and follows the willing that he may not will in vain, he makes him the
sole author of the good work. His language on this subject is too explicit
to require much argument. “Men labour,” says he, “to discover in our will
something that is our own, and not derived from God; and how any such
discovery can be made, I know not.” In his first book against Pelagius and
Celestius, where he explains that declaration of Christ, “Every man that
hath heard of the Father cometh unto me,”(632) he says, that “the will is
assisted so as to enable it not only to know its duty, but what it knows,
also to do.” And thus when God teaches not by the letter of the law, but
by the grace of the Spirit, he teaches in such a manner, that whatever
each one has learned, he not only sees in knowing it, but desires in
willing, and performs in doing.

VIII. And as we are now engaged on the principal point of the argument,
let us give the reader a summary of the doctrine, and prove it by a few
very clear testimonies of Scripture; and then, that no one may accuse us
of perverting the Scripture, let us also show that the truth which we
assert to be deduced from the Scripture is not destitute of the support of
this holy man; I mean Augustine. For I conceive it is unnecessary to
recite in regular order all the passages which might be adduced from the
Scriptures in confirmation of our opinion; provided that the selection,
which shall be made, prepares a way to the understanding of all the rest,
which are frequently to be found. Nor do I think that there will be any
impropriety in evincing my agreement with that man, to whose authority the
consent of the pious pays a great and merited deference. The origin of all
good clearly appears, from a plain and certain reason, to be from no other
than from God alone; for no propensity of the will to any thing good can
be found but in the elect. But the cause of election must not be sought in
men. Whence we may conclude, that man has not a good will from himself,
but that it proceeds from the same decree by which we were elected before
the creation of the world. There is also another reason, not dissimilar.
For since good volitions and good actions both arise from faith, we must
see whence faith itself originates. Now, since the Scripture uniformly
proclaims it to be the gratuitous gift of God, it follows that it is the
effect of mere grace, when we, who are naturally and completely prone to
evil, begin to will any thing that is good. Therefore the Lord, when he
mentions these two things in the conversion of his people, that he takes
away from them their stony heart, and gives them a heart of flesh, plainly
declares, that what originates from ourselves must be removed, that we may
be converted to righteousness; and that whatever succeeds in its place
proceeds from himself. Nor is it only in one passage that he announces
this; for he says in Jeremiah, “I will give them one heart and one way,
that they may fear me for ever.”(633) And a little after, “I will put my
fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” Again in
Ezekiel, “I will give them one heart, and will put a new spirit within
you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give
them a heart of flesh.”(634) He could not more evidently claim to himself
and take from us all that is good and upright in our will, than when he
declares our conversion to be the creation of a new spirit and of a new
heart. For it always follows, that nothing good proceeds from our will
till it be renovated; and that after its renovation, as far as it is good,
it is from God, and not from ourselves.

IX. And we find the saints have made this the subject of their prayers.
Solomon prayed, “May the Lord incline our hearts unto him to keep his
commandments.”(635) He shows the stubbornness of our heart, which, unless
a new bias be given to it, naturally indulges itself in rebellion against
the Divine law. The same petition is offered by the Psalmist: “Incline my
heart unto thy testimonies.”(636) For we should always remark the
opposition between the perverse bias of the heart, which inclines it to
rebellion, and this correction, which constrains it to obedience. But when
David, perceiving himself to be for a time deprived of the direction of
grace, prays that God would “create in” him “a clean heart, and renew a
right spirit within” him,(637) does he not acknowledge that all the parts
of his heart are full of impurity, and his spirit warped by a depraved
obliquity? and by calling the purity which he earnestly implores, the
creation of God, does he not ascribe it entirely to him? If any one
object, that the petition itself is a proof of a pious and holy affection,
the answer is easy, that although David had already partly repented, yet
he compares his former state with that melancholy fall, which he had
experienced. Assuming the character, therefore, of a man alienated from
God, he properly requests for himself all those things which God confers
on his elect in regeneration. Resembling a dead man, therefore, he prays
to be created anew, that, instead of being the slave of Satan, he may
become the instrument of the Holy Spirit. Truly wonderful and monstrous is
the extravagance of our pride. God requires of us nothing more severe than
that we most religiously observe his sabbath, by resting from our own
works; but there is nothing which we find more difficult, or to which we
are more reluctant, than to bid farewell to our own works, in order to
give the works of God their proper place. If there were no obstacle
arising from our folly, Christ has given a testimony to his graces,
sufficiently clear to prevent them from being wickedly suppressed. “I am
the vine,” says he, “ye are the branches. My Father is the husbandman. As
the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no
more can ye, except ye abide in me. For without me ye can do
nothing.”(638) If we cannot bear fruit of ourselves, any more than a
branch can bud after it is torn up from the ground, and deprived of
moisture, we must no longer seek for any aptitude in our nature to that
which is good. There is no ambiguity in this conclusion, “Without me ye
can do nothing.” He does not say that we are too weak to be sufficient for
ourselves, but reducing us to nothing, excludes every idea of ability,
however diminutive. If, being engrafted into Christ, we bear fruit like a
vine, which derives the energy of vegetation from the moisture of the
earth, from the dew of heaven, and from the benign influences of the sun,
I see nothing of our own remaining in any good work, if we preserve entire
to God the honour which belongs to him. It is in vain to urge that
frivolous subtlety, that the branch already possesses sap, and a
fructifying power, and that therefore it does not derive all from the
earth, or from the original root, because it contributes something of its
own. For the meaning of Christ is clearly that we are as a dry and
worthless log, when separated from him; because, independently of him, we
have no ability to do good, as he says also in another place: “Every
plant, which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up.”(639)
Wherefore the Apostle ascribes all the praise to him in the place already
cited. “It is God,” says he, “which worketh in you both to will and to
do.”(640) The first part of a good work is volition, the next an effectual
endeavour to perform it; God is the author of both. Therefore we rob the
Lord, if we arrogate any thing to ourselves either in volition or in
execution. If God were said to assist the infirmity of our will, then
there would be something left to us; but since he is said to produce the
will, all the good that is in it, is placed without us. And because the
good will is still oppressed by the burden of our flesh, so that it cannot
extricate itself, he has added, that in struggling with the difficulties
of that conflict, we are supplied with constancy of exertion to carry our
volitions into effect. For otherwise there would be no truth in what he
elsewhere teaches, that “it is the same God which worketh all in
all,”(641) which we have before shown comprehends the whole course of the
spiritual life. For which reason David, after having prayed that the way
of God may be discovered to him, that he may walk in his truth,
immediately adds, “Unite my heart to fear thy name.”(642) In these words
he intimates, that even good men are subject to so many distractions of
mind, that they soon wander and fall, unless they are strengthened to
persevere. For the same reason, in another passage, having prayed that his
steps might be ordered in the word of the Lord, he likewise implores
strength for a warfare: “Let not any iniquity have dominion over me.”(643)
In this manner, therefore, the Lord both begins and completes the good
work in us; that it may be owing to him, that the will conceives a love
for what is right, that it is inclined to desire it, and is excited and
impelled to endeavour to attain it; and then that the choice, desire, and
endeavour do not fail, but proceed even to the completion of the desired
effect; lastly, that a man proceeds with constancy in them, and perseveres
even to the end.

X. And he moves the will, not according to the system maintained and
believed for many ages, in such a manner that it would afterwards be at
our option either to obey the impulse or to resist it, but by an
efficacious influence. The observation, therefore, so frequently repeated
by Chrysostom, that “Whom God draws, he draws willing,” we are obliged to
reject, being an insinuation that God only waits for us with his hand
extended, if we choose to accept his assistance. We grant that such was
the primitive condition of man during his state of integrity, that he
could incline to the one side or the other; but since Adam has taught us
by his own example how miserable free will is, unless God give us both
will and power, what will become of us if he impart his grace to us in
that small proportion? Nay, we obscure and diminish his grace by our
ingratitude. For the Apostle does not teach that the grace of a good will
is offered to us for our acceptance, but that he “worketh in us to will;”
which is equivalent to saying, that the Lord, by his Spirit, directs,
inclines, and governs our heart, and reigns in it as in his own
possession. Nor does he promise by Ezekiel that he will give to the elect
a new spirit, only that they may be able to walk, but that they may
actually walk, in his precepts.(644) Nor can the declaration of Christ,
“Every man that hath heard of the Father cometh unto me,”(645) be
understood in any other sense than as a proof of the positive efficacy of
Divine grace; as Augustine also contends. This grace the Lord deigns not
to give to any person promiscuously, according to the observation commonly
attributed, if I mistake not, to Occam, that it is denied to no man who
does what he can. Men are to be taught, indeed, that the Divine benignity
is free to all who seek it, without any exception; but since none begin to
seek it, but those who have been inspired by heavenly grace, not even this
diminutive portion ought to be taken from his praise. This is the
privilege of the elect, that, being regenerated by the Spirit of God, they
are led and governed by his direction. Wherefore Augustine as justly
ridicules those who arrogate to themselves any part of a good volition, as
he reprehends others, who suppose that to be given promiscuously to all,
which is the special evidence of gratuitous election. “Nature,” says he,
“is common to all men, but not grace.” He calls it “a transparent
subtlety, which shines merely with vanity, when that is extended generally
to all, which God confers on whom he chooses.” But elsewhere, “How have
you come? by believing. Be afraid, lest while you arrogate to yourself the
discovery of the way of righteousness, you perish from the way of
righteousness. I am come, you say, by free will; I am come through my own
choice. Why are you inflated with pride? Will you know that this also is
given to you? Hear him proclaiming, ‘No man can come to me, except the
Father which hath sent me draw him.’ ”(646) And it incontrovertibly
follows, from the words of John, that the hearts of the pious are divinely
governed with such effect, that they follow with an affection which
nothing can alter. “Whosoever is born of God,” he says, “cannot sin; for
his seed remaineth in him.”(647) For we see that the neutral,
inefficacious impulse imagined by the sophists, which every one would be
at liberty to obey or resist, is evidently excluded, where it is asserted
that God gives a constancy that is effectual to perseverance.

XI. Concerning perseverance there would have been no doubt that it ought
to be esteemed the gratuitous gift of God, had it not been for the
prevalence of a pestilent error, that it is dispensed according to the
merit of men, in proportion to the gratitude which each person has
discovered for the grace bestowed on him. But as that opinion arose from
the supposition that it was at our own option to reject or accept the
offered grace of God, this notion being exploded, the other falls of
course. Though here is a double error; for beside teaching that our
gratitude for the grace first bestowed on us, and our legitimate use of
that grace, are remunerated by subsequent blessings, they add also, that
now grace does not operate alone in us, but only coöperates with us. On
the first point, we must admit that the Lord, while he daily enriches and
loads his servants with new communications of his grace, perceiving the
work which he has begun in them grateful and acceptable, discovers
something in them which he blesses with still greater degrees of grace.
And this is implied in the following declarations: “Unto every one that
hath, shall be given.” And, “Well done, good and faithful servant; thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many
things.”(648) But here two errors must be avoided; the legitimate use of
the grace first bestowed must not be said to be rewarded with subsequent
degrees of grace, as though man, by his own industry, rendered the grace
of God efficacious; nor must it be accounted a remuneration in such a
sense as to cease to be esteemed the free favour of God. I grant, then,
that this Divine benediction is to be expected by the faithful, that the
better they have used the former measures of grace, they shall afterwards
be enriched with proportionably greater degrees of it. But I assert that
this use also is from the Lord, and that this remuneration proceeds from
his gratuitous benevolence. They are equally awkward and unhappy in their
use of the trite distinction of operating and coöperating grace. Augustine
has used it indeed, but softens it by a suitable definition; that God in
coöperating completes what in operating he begins, and that it is the same
grace, but derives its name from the different mode of its efficiency.
Whence it follows, that he makes no partition of the work between God and
us, as though there were a mutual concurrence from the respective
exertions of each; but that he only designates the multiplication of
grace. To the same purpose is what he elsewhere asserts, that the good
will of man precedes many of the gifts of God, but is itself one of their
number. Whence it follows, that he leaves nothing for it to arrogate to
itself. This is also particularly expressed by Paul. For having said that
“it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do,”(649) he
immediately adds, that he does both “of his own good pleasure,” signifying
by this expression that these are acts of gratuitous benignity. Now, to
their wonted assertion, that after we have admitted the first grace, our
own endeavours coöperate with the grace which follows, I reply, if they
mean that, after having been once subdued by the Divine power to the
obedience of righteousness, we voluntarily advance, and are disposed to
follow the guidance of grace, I make no objection. For it is very certain,
that where the grace of God reigns, there is such a promptitude of
obedience. But whence does this arise but from the Spirit of God, who,
uniformly consistent with himself, cherishes and strengthens to a
constancy of perseverance that disposition of obedience which he first
originated? But if they mean that man derives from himself an ability to
coöperate with the grace of God, they are involved in a most pestilent
error.

XII. And to this purpose they falsely and ignorantly pervert that
observation of the Apostle, “I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet
not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”(650) For they understand
it in this manner; that because his preference of himself to all others
might appear rather too arrogant, he corrects it by referring the praise
to the grace of God; but yet so as to denominate himself a coöperator with
grace. It is surprising that so many men, not otherwise erroneous, have
stumbled at this imaginary difficulty. For the Apostle does not say that
the grace of God laboured with him, to make himself a partner in the
labour; but rather by that correction ascribes the whole praise of the
labour to grace alone. “It is not I,” says he, “that have laboured, but
the grace of God which was with me.” They have been deceived by an
ambiguity of expression; but still more by a preposterous translation, in
which the force of the Greek article is omitted. For if you translate it
literally, he says, not that grace was coöperative with him, but that the
grace which was with him was the author of all. And the same is maintained
by Augustine, though briefly, yet without obscurity, when he thus
expresses himself: “The good will of man precedes many of the gifts of
God, but not all. But of those which it precedes it is itself one.” Then
follows this reason; because it is written, “The God of my mercy shall
prevent me.”(651) And, “Mercy shall follow me.”(652) It prevents the
unwilling, that he may will; it follows the willing, that he may not will
in vain. With this agrees Bernard, who introduces the Church, saying,
“Draw me unwilling, to make me willing; draw me inactive, to make me run.”

XIII. Now, let us hear Augustine speak in his own words, lest the sophists
of the Sorbonne, those Pelagians of the present age, according to their
usual custom, accuse us of opposing the whole current of antiquity. In
this they imitate their father Pelagius, by whom Augustine was formerly
obliged to enter into the same field of controversy. In his treatise _De
Corr. et Grat._, addressed to Valentine, he treats very much at large what
I shall recite briefly, but in his own words: “That to Adam was given the
grace of persevering in good if he chose; that grace is given to us to
will, and by willing to overcome concupiscence. That Adam therefore had
the power if he had the will, but not the will that he might have the
power; but that it is given to us to have both the will and the power.
That the primitive liberty was a power to abstain from sin, but that ours
is much greater, being an inability to commit sin.” And lest he should be
supposed to speak of the perfection to be enjoyed after the attainment of
a state of immortality, as Lombard misinterprets his meaning, he presently
removes this difficulty. For he says, “the will of the saints is so
inflamed by the Holy Spirit, that they therefore have an ability, because
they have such a will; and that their having such a will proceeds from the
operations of God.” For if, amidst such great weakness, which still
requires “strength” to be “made perfect”(653) for the repressing of pride,
they were left to their own will, so as to have ability, through the
Divine assistance, if they were willing, and God did not operate in them
to produce that will; among so many temptations and infirmities their will
would fail, and therefore they could not possibly persevere. The infirmity
of the human will, then, is succoured, that it may be invariably and
inseparably actuated by Divine grace, and so, notwithstanding all its
weakness, may not fail. He afterwards discusses more at large how our
hearts necessarily follow the impulse of God; and he asserts that the Lord
draws men with their own wills, but that those wills are such as he
himself has formed. Now, we have a testimony from the mouth of Augustine
to the point which we are principally endeavouring to establish; that
grace is not merely offered by the Lord to be either received or rejected,
according to the free choice of each individual, but that it is grace
which produces both the choice and the will in the heart; so that every
subsequent good work is the fruit and effect of it, and that it is obeyed
by no other will but that which it has produced. For this is his language
also in another place—that it is grace alone which performs every good
work in us.

XIV. When he observes that the will is not taken away by grace, but only
changed from a bad one into a good one, and when it is good, assisted; he
only intends that man is not drawn in such a manner as to be carried away
by an external impulse, without any inclination of his mind; but that he
is internally so disposed as to obey from his very heart. That grace is
specially and gratuitously given to the elect, he maintains in an epistle
to Boniface, in the following language: “We know that the grace of God is
not given to all men; and that to them to whom it is given, it is given
neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of
will, but by gratuitous favour; and to those to whom it is not given, we
know that it is not given by the righteous judgment of God.” And in the
same epistle, he strenuously combats that opinion, which supposes that
subsequent grace is given to the merits of men, because by not rejecting
the first grace they showed themselves worthy of it. For he wishes
Pelagius to allow that grace is necessary to us for every one of our
actions, and is not a retribution of our works, that it may be
acknowledged to be pure grace. But the subject cannot be comprised in a
more concise summary than in the eighth chapter of his treatise addressed
to Valentine; where he teaches, that the human will obtains, not grace by
liberty, but liberty by grace; that being impressed by the same grace with
a disposition of delight, it is formed for perpetuity; that it is
strengthened with invincible fortitude; that while grace reigns, it never
falls, but, deserted by grace, falls immediately; that by the gratuitous
mercy of the Lord, it is converted to what is good, and, being converted,
perseveres in it; that the first direction of the human will to that which
is good, and its subsequent constancy, depend solely on the will of God,
and not on any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such a free will,
if we choose to give it that appellation, as he describes in another
place, that he can neither be converted to God nor continue in God but by
grace; and that all the ability which he has is derived from grace.

Chapter IV. The Operation Of God In The Hearts Of Men.

It has now, I apprehend, been sufficiently proved, that man is so enslaved
by sin, as to be of his own nature incapable of an effort, or even an
aspiration, towards that which is good. We have also laid down a
distinction between coaction and necessity, from which it appears that
while he sins necessarily, he nevertheless sins voluntarily. But since,
while he is devoted to the servitude of the devil, he seems to be actuated
by his will, rather than by his own, it remains for us to explain the
nature of both kinds of influence. There is also this question to be
resolved, whether any thing is to be attributed to God in evil actions, in
which the Scripture intimates that some influence of his is concerned.
Augustine somewhere compares the human will to a horse, obedient to the
direction of his rider; and God and the devil he compares to riders. “If
God rides it, he, like a sober and skilful rider, manages it in a graceful
manner; stimulates its tardiness; restrains its immoderate celerity;
represses its wantonness and wildness; tames its perverseness, and
conducts it into the right way. But if the devil has taken possession of
it, he, like a foolish and wanton rider, forces it through pathless
places, hurries it into ditches, drives it down over precipices, and
excites it to obstinacy and ferocity.” With this similitude, as no better
occurs, we will at present be content. When the will of a natural man is
said to be subject to the power of the devil, so as to be directed by it,
the meaning is, not that it resists and is compelled to a reluctant
submission, as masters compel slaves to an unwilling performance of their
commands, but that, being fascinated by the fallacies of Satan, it
necessarily submits itself to all his directions. For those whom the Lord
does not favour with the government of his Spirit, he abandons, in
righteous judgment, to the influence of Satan. Wherefore the Apostle says,
that “the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe
not,” who are destined to destruction, “lest the light of the gospel
should shine unto them.”(654) And in another place, that he “worketh in
the children of disobedience.”(655) The blinding of the wicked, and all
those enormities which attend it, are called the works of Satan; the cause
of which must nevertheless be sought only in the human will, from which
proceeds the root of evil, and in which rests the foundation of the
kingdom of Satan, that is, sin.

II. Very different, in such instances, is the method of the Divine
operation. And that we may have a clearer view of it, let us take as an
example the calamity which holy Job suffered from the Chaldeans.(656) The
Chaldeans massacred his shepherds, and committed hostile depredations on
his flock. Now, the wickedness of their procedure is evident; yet in these
transactions Satan was not unconcerned; for with him the history states
the whole affair to have originated. But Job himself recognizes in it the
work of the Lord, whom he asserts to have taken from him those things of
which he had been plundered by the Chaldeans. How can we refer the same
action to God, to Satan, and to man, as being each the author of it,
without either excusing Satan by associating him with God, or making God
the author of evil? Very easily, if we examine, first, the end for which
the action was designed, and secondly, the manner in which it was
effected. The design of the Lord is to exercise the patience of his
servant by adversity; Satan endeavours to drive him to despair: the
Chaldeans, in defiance of law and justice, desire to enrich themselves by
the property of another. So great a diversity of design makes a great
distinction in the action. There is no less difference in the manner. The
Lord permits his servant to be afflicted by Satan: the Chaldeans, whom he
commissions to execute his purpose, he permits and resigns to be impelled
by Satan: Satan, with his envenomed stings, instigates the minds of the
Chaldeans, otherwise very depraved, to perpetrate the crime: they
furiously rush into the act of injustice, and overwhelm themselves in
criminality. Satan therefore is properly said to work in the reprobate, in
whom he exercises his dominion; that is, the kingdom of iniquity. God also
is said to work in a way proper to himself, because Satan, being the
instrument of his wrath, turns himself hither and thither at his
appointment and command, to execute his righteous judgments. Here I allude
not to the universal influence of God, by which all creatures are
sustained, and from which they derive an ability to perform whatever they
do. I speak only of that special influence which appears in every
particular act. We see, then, that the same action is without absurdity
ascribed to God, to Satan, and to man; but the variety in the end and in
the manner, causes the righteousness of God to shine without the least
blemish, and the iniquity of Satan and of man to betray itself to its own
disgrace.

III. The fathers are sometimes too scrupulous on this subject, and afraid
of a simple confession of the truth, lest they should afford an occasion
to impiety to speak irreverently and reproachfully of the works of God.
Though I highly approve this sobriety, yet I think we are in no danger, if
we simply maintain what the Scripture delivers. Even Augustine at one time
was not free from this scrupulosity; as when he says that hardening and
blinding belong not to the operation, but to the prescience of God. But
these subtleties are inconsistent with numerous expressions of the
Scripture, which evidently import some intervention of God beyond mere
foreknowledge. And Augustine himself, in his fifth book against Julian,
contends very largely, that sins proceed not only from the permission or
the prescience, but from the power of God, in order that former sins may
thereby be punished. So also what they advance concerning permission is
too weak to be supported. God is very frequently said to blind and harden
the reprobate, and to turn, incline, and influence their hearts, as I have
elsewhere more fully stated. But it affords no explication of the nature
of this influence to resort to prescience or permission. We answer,
therefore, that it operates in two ways. For, since, when his light is
removed, nothing remains but darkness and blindness; since, when his
Spirit is withdrawn, our hearts harden into stones; since, when his
direction ceases, they are warped into obliquity; he is properly said to
blind, harden, and incline those whom he deprives of the power of seeing,
obeying, and acting aright. The second way, which is much more consistent
with strict propriety of language, is, when, for the execution of his
judgments, he, by means of Satan, the minister of his wrath, directs their
counsels to what he pleases, and excites their wills and strengthens their
efforts. Thus, when Moses relates that Sihon the king would not grant a
free passage to the people, because God had “hardened his spirit, and made
his heart obstinate,” he immediately subjoins the end of God’s design:
“That he might deliver him into thy hand.”(657) Since God willed his
destruction, the obduration of his heart, therefore, was the Divine
preparation for his ruin.

IV. The following expressions seem to relate to the former method: “He
removeth away the speech of the trusty, and taketh away the understanding
of the aged. He taketh away the heart of the chief people of the earth,
and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.”(658)
Again: “O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened
our heart from thy fear?”(659) For these passages rather indicate what God
makes men by deserting them, than show how he performs his operations
within them. But there are other testimonies, which go further; as those
which relate to the hardening of Pharaoh: “I will harden his (Pharaoh’s)
heart, that he shall not let the people go.”(660) Afterwards the Lord
says, “I have hardened his heart.”(661) Did he harden it by not mollifying
it? That is true; but he did somewhat more, for he delivered his heart to
Satan to be confirmed in obstinacy; whence he had before said, “I will
harden his heart.” The people march out of Egypt; the inhabitants of the
country meet them in a hostile manner: by whom were they excited? Moses
expressly declared to the people, that it was the Lord who had hardened
their hearts.(662) The Psalmist, reciting the same history, says, “He
turned their heart to hate his people.”(663) Now, it cannot be said that
they fell in consequence of being deprived of the counsel of God. For if
they are “hardened” and “turned,” they are positively inclined to that
point. Besides, whenever it has pleased him to punish the transgressions
of his people, how has he executed his work by means of the reprobate? In
such a manner that any one may see, that the efficacy of the action
proceeded from him, and that they were only the ministers of his will.
Wherefore he threatened sometimes that he would call them forth by
hissing,(664) sometimes that he would use them as a net(665) to entangle,
sometimes as a hammer(666) to strike the people of Israel. But he
particularly declared himself to be operative in them, when he called
Sennacherib an axe,(667) which was both directed and driven by his hand.
Augustine somewhere makes the following correct distinction: “that they
sin, proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that
particular action, is from the power of God, who divides the darkness
according to his pleasure.”

V. Now that the ministry of Satan is concerned in instigating the
reprobate, whenever the Lord directs them hither or thither by his
providence, may be sufficiently proved even from one passage. For it is
frequently asserted in Samuel that an evil spirit of the Lord, and an evil
spirit from the Lord, either agitated or quitted Saul.(668) To refer this
to the Holy Spirit were impious. An impure spirit, therefore, is called a
spirit of God, because it acts according to his command and by his power,
being rather an instrument in the performance of the action, than itself
the author of it. We must add, also, what is advanced by Paul, that “God
shall send strong delusion, that they who believed not the truth should
believe a lie.”(669) Yet there is always a wide difference, even in the
same work, between the operation of God and the attempts of Satan and
wicked men. He makes the evil instruments, which he has in his hand, and
can turn as he pleases, to be subservient to his justice. They, as they
are evil, produce the iniquity which the depravity of their nature has
conceived. The other arguments, which tend to vindicate the majesty of God
from every calumny, and to obviate the cavils of the impious, have already
been advanced in the chapter concerning Providence. For, at present, I
only intend briefly to show how Satan reigns in the reprobate man, and how
the Lord operates in them both.

VI. But what liberty man possesses in those actions which in themselves
are neither righteous nor wicked, and pertain rather to the corporeal than
to the spiritual life, although we have before hinted, has not yet been
explicitly stated. Some have admitted him in such things to possess a free
choice; rather, as I suppose, from a reluctance to dispute on a subject of
no importance, than from an intention of positively asserting that which
they concede. Now, though I grant that they who believe themselves to be
possessed of no power to justify themselves, believe what is principally
necessary to be known in order to salvation, yet I think that this point
also should not be neglected, that we may know it to be owing to the
special favour of God, whenever our mind is disposed to choose that which
is advantageous for us; whenever our will inclines to it; and, on the
other hand, whenever our mind and understanding avoid what would otherwise
hurt us. And the power of the providence of God extends so far, as not
only to cause those events to succeed which he foresees will be best, but
also to incline the wills of men to the same objects. Indeed, if we view
the administration of external things with our own reason, we shall not
doubt their subjection to the human will; but if we listen to the numerous
testimonies, which proclaim that in these things also the hearts of men
are governed by the Lord, they will constrain us to submit the will itself
to the special influence of God. Who conciliated the minds of the
Egyptians towards the Israelites,(670) so as to induce them to lend them
the most valuable of their furniture? They would never have been induced
to do this of their own accord. It follows, therefore, that their hearts
were guided by the Lord rather than by an inclination of their own. And
Jacob, if he had not been persuaded that God infuses various dispositions
into men according to his pleasure, would not have said concerning his son
Joseph, whom he thought to be some profane Egyptian, “God Almighty give
you mercy before the man.”(671) As the whole Church confesses in the
Psalms, that, when God chose to compassionate her, he softened the hearts
of the cruel nations into clemency.(672) Again, when Saul was so inflamed
with rage, as to prepare himself for war, it is expressly mentioned as the
cause, that he was impelled by the Spirit of God.(673) Who diverted the
mind of Absalom from adopting the counsel of Ahithophel, which used to be
esteemed as an oracle?(674) Who inclined Rehoboam to be persuaded by the
counsel of the young men?(675) Who caused the nations, that before were
very valiant, to feel terror at the approach of the Israelites? Rahab the
harlot confessed that this was the work of God. Who, on the other hand,
dejected the minds of the Israelites with fear and terror, but he who had
threatened in the law that he would “send a faintness into their
hearts?”(676)

VII. Some one will object, that these are peculiar examples, to the rule
of which, things ought by no means universally to be reduced. But I
maintain, that they are sufficient to prove that for which I contend; that
God, whenever he designs to prepare the way for his providence, inclines
and moves the wills of men even in external things, and that their choice
is not so free, but that its liberty is subject to the will of God. That
your mind depends more on the influence of God, than on the liberty of
your own choice, you must be constrained to conclude, whether you are
willing or not, from this daily experience, that in affairs of no
perplexity your judgment and understanding frequently fail; that in
undertakings not arduous your spirits languish; on the other hand, in
things the most obscure, suitable advice is immediately offered; in things
great and perilous, your mind proves superior to every difficulty. And
thus I explain the observation of Solomon, “The hearing ear, and the
seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them.”(677) For he appears to
me to speak, not of their creation, but of the peculiar favour of God
displayed in their performing their functions. When he says, that “the
king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of water, he
turneth it whithersoever he will;”(678) under one species he clearly
comprehends the whole genus. For if the will of any man be free from all
subjection, that privilege belongs eminently to the will of a king, which
exercises a government in some measure over the wills of others; but if
the will of the king be subject to the power of God, ours cannot be
exempted from the same authority. Augustine has a remarkable passage on
this subject: “The Scripture, if it be diligently examined, shows, not
only that the good wills of men, which he turns from evil into good, and
directs to good actions and to eternal life, but also that those wills
which relate to the present life, are subject to the power of God, so that
he, by a most secret, but yet a most righteous judgment, causes them to be
inclined whither he pleases, and when he pleases, either for the
communication of benefits, or for the infliction of punishments.”

VIII. Here let the reader remember, that the ability of the human will is
not to be estimated from the event of things, as some ignorant men are
preposterously accustomed to do. For they conceive themselves fully and
ingeniously to establish the servitude of the human will, because even the
most exalted monarchs have not all their desires fulfilled. But this
ability, of which we speak, is to be considered within man, and not to be
measured by external success. For in the dispute concerning free will, the
question is not, whether a man, notwithstanding external impediments, can
perform and execute whatever he may have resolved in his mind, but whether
in every case his judgment exerts freedom of choice, and his will freedom
of inclination. If men possess both these, then Attilius Regulus, when
confined to the small extent of a cask stuck round with nails, will
possess as much free will as Augustus Cæsar, when governing a great part
of the world with his nod.

Chapter V. A Refutation Of The Objections Commonly Urged In Support Of
Free Will.

Enough might appear to have been already said on the servitude of the
human will, did not they, who endeavour to overthrow it with a false
notion of liberty, allege, on the contrary, certain reasons in opposition
to our sentiments. First, they collect together some absurdities, in order
to render it odious, as if it were abhorrent to common sense; and then
they attack it with testimonies of Scripture. Both these weapons we will
repel in order. If sin, say they, be necessary, then it ceases to be sin;
if it be voluntary, then it may be avoided. These were also the weapons
used by Pelagius in his attacks on Augustine; with whose authority,
however, we wish not to urge them, till we shall have given some
satisfaction on the subject itself. I deny, then, that sin is the less
criminal, because it is necessary; I deny also the other consequence,
which they infer, that it is avoidable because it is voluntary. For, if
any one wish to dispute with God, and to escape his judgment by the
pretext of having been incapable of acting otherwise, he is prepared with
an answer, which we have elsewhere advanced, that it arises not from
creation, but from the corruption of nature, that men, being enslaved by
sin, can will nothing but what is evil. For whence proceeded that
impotence, of which the ungodly would gladly avail themselves, but from
Adam voluntarily devoting himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence,
therefore, the corruption with which we are firmly bound. It originated in
the revolt of the first man from his Maker. If all men are justly
accounted guilty of this rebellion, let them not suppose themselves
excused by necessity, in which very thing they have a most evident cause
of their condemnation. And this I have before clearly explained, and have
given an example in the devil himself, which shows, that he who sins
necessarily, sins no less voluntarily; and also in the elect angels, whose
will, though it cannot swerve from what is good, ceases not to be a will.
Bernard also judiciously inculcates the same doctrine, that we are,
therefore, the more miserable because our necessity is voluntary; which
yet constrains us to be so devoted to it, that we are, as we have already
observed, the slaves of sin. The second branch of their argument is
erroneous; because it makes an improper transition from what is voluntary
to what is free; but we have before evinced, that a thing may be done
voluntarily, which yet is not the subject of free choice.

II. They add, that unless both virtues and vices proceed from the free
choice of the will, it is not reasonable either that punishments should be
inflicted, or that rewards should be conferred on man. This argument,
though first advanced by Aristotle, yet I grant is used on some occasions
by Chrysostom and Jerome. That it was familiar to the Pelagians, however,
Jerome himself does not dissemble, but even relates their own words: “If
the grace of God operates in us, then the crown will be given to grace,
not to us who labour.” In regard to punishments, I reply, that they are
justly inflicted on us, from whom the guilt of sin proceeds. For of what
importance is it, whether sin be committed with a judgment free or
enslaved, so it be committed with the voluntary bias of the passions;
especially as man is proved to be a sinner, because he is subject to the
servitude of sin? With respect to rewards of righteousness, where is the
great absurdity, if we confess that they depend rather on the Divine
benignity than on our own merits? How often does this recur in Augustine,
“that God crowns not our merits, but his own gifts; and that they are
called rewards, not as though they were due to our merits, but because
they are retributions to the graces already conferred on us!” They
discover great acuteness in this observation, that there remains no room
for merits, if they originate not from free will; but in their opinion of
the erroneousness of our sentiment they are greatly mistaken. For
Augustine hesitates not on all occasions to inculcate as certain, what
they think it impious to acknowledge; as where he says, “What are the
merits of any man? When he comes not with a merited reward, but with free
grace, he alone being free and a deliverer from sins, finds all men
sinners.” Again: “If you receive what is your due, you must be punished.
What then is done? God has given you not merited punishment, but unmerited
grace. If you wish to be excluded from grace, boast your merits.” Again:
“You are nothing of yourself; sins are yours, merits belong to God; you
deserve punishment; and when you come to be rewarded, he will crown his
own gifts, not your merits.” In the same sense he elsewhere teaches that
grace proceeds not from merit, but merit from grace. And a little after he
concludes, that God with his gifts precedes all merits, that thence he may
elicit his other merits, and gives altogether freely, because he discovers
nothing as a cause of salvation. But what necessity is there for further
quotations, when his writings are full of such passages? But the Apostle
will even better deliver them from this error, if they will hear from what
origin he deduces the glory of the saints. “Whom he did predestinate, them
he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he
justified, them he also glorified.”(679) Why, then, according to the
Apostle, are the faithful crowned? Because by the mercy of the Lord, and
not by their own industry, they are elected, and called, and justified.
Farewell, then, this vain fear, that there will be an end of all merits if
free will be overturned. For it is a proof of extreme folly, to be
terrified and to fly from that to which the Scripture calls us. “If,” says
he, “thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not
received it?”(680) You see that he divests free will of every thing, with
the express design of leaving no room for merits. But yet, the beneficence
and liberality of God being inexhaustible and various, those graces which
he confers on us, because he makes them ours, he rewards, just as if they
were our own virtues.

III. They further allege what may appear to be borrowed from Chrysostom,
that if our will has not this ability to choose good or evil, the
partakers of the same nature must be either all evil or all good. And not
very far from this is the writer, whoever he was, of the treatise _On the
Calling of the Gentiles_, which is circulated under the name of Ambrose,
when he argues, that no man would ever recede from the faith, unless the
grace of God left us the condition of mutability. In which it is
surprising that such great men were so inconsistent with themselves. For
how did it not occur to Chrysostom, that it is the election of God, which
makes this difference between men? We are not afraid to allow, what Paul
very strenuously asserts, that all, without exception, are depraved and
addicted to wickedness; but with him we add, that the mercy of God does
not permit all to remain in depravity. Therefore, since we all naturally
labour under the same disease, they alone recover to whom the Lord has
been pleased to apply his healing hand. The rest, whom he passes by in
righteous judgment, putrefy in their corruption till they are entirely
consumed. And it is from the same cause, that some persevere to the end,
and others decline and fall in the midst of their course. For perseverance
itself also is a gift of God, which he bestows not on all men
promiscuously, but imparts to whom he pleases. If we inquire the cause of
the difference, why some persevere with constancy, and others fail through
instability, no other can be found, but that God sustains the former by
his power, that they perish not, and does not communicate the same
strength to the latter, that they may be examples of inconstancy.

IV. They urge further, that exhortations are given in vain, that the use
of admonitions is superfluous, and that reproofs are ridiculous, if it be
not in the power of the sinner to obey. When similar objections were
formerly made to Augustine, he was obliged to write his treatise _On
Correction and Grace_; in which, though he copiously refutes them, he
calls his adversaries to this conclusion: “O man, in the commandment learn
what is your duty: in correction learn, that through your own fault you
have it not: in prayer learn whence you may receive what you wish to
enjoy.” There is nearly the same argument in the treatise _On the Spirit
and Letter_, in which he maintains that God does not regulate the precepts
of his law by the ability of men, but when he has commanded what is right,
freely gives to his elect ability to perform it. This is not a subject
that requires a prolix discussion. First, we are not alone in this cause,
but have the support of Christ and all the Apostles. Let our opponents
consider how they can obtain the superiority in a contest with such
antagonists. Does Christ, who declares that without him we can do
nothing,(681) on that account the less reprehend and punish those who
without him do what is evil? Does he therefore relax in his exhortations
to every man to practise good works? How severely does Paul censure the
Corinthians for their neglect of charity!(682) Yet he earnestly prays that
charity may be given them by the Lord. In his Epistle to the Romans he
declares that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but
of God that showeth mercy:”(683) yet afterwards he refrains not from the
use of admonition, exhortation, and reproof. Why do they not, therefore,
remonstrate with the Lord, not to lose his labour in such a manner, by
requiring of men those things which he alone can bestow, and punishing
those things which are committed for want of his grace? Why do they not
admonish Paul to spare those who are unable to will or run without the
previous mercy of God, of which they are now destitute? As though truly
the Lord has not the best reason for his doctrine, which readily presents
itself to those who religiously seek it. Paul clearly shows how far
doctrine, exhortation, and reproof, can of themselves avail towards
producing a change of heart, when he says that “neither is he that
planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but” that the efficacy is
solely from “God that giveth the increase.”(684) Thus we see that Moses
severely sanctions the precepts of the law, and the Prophets earnestly
urge and threaten transgressors; whilst, nevertheless, they acknowledge,
that men never begin to be wise till a heart is given them to understand;
that it is the peculiar work of God to circumcise the heart, and instead
of a stony heart to give a heart of flesh; to inscribe his law in men’s
minds; in a word, to render his doctrine effectual by a renovation of the
soul.

V. What, then, it will be inquired, is the use of exhortations? I reply,
If the impious despise them with obstinate hearts, they will serve for a
testimony against them, when they shall come to the tribunal of the Lord;
and even in the present state they wound their consciences; for however
the most audacious person may deride them, he cannot disapprove of them in
his heart. But it will be said, What can a miserable sinner do, if the
softness of heart, which is necessary to obedience, be denied him? I ask,
What excuse can he plead, seeing that he cannot impute the hardness of his
heart to any one but himself? The impious, therefore, who are ready, if
possible, to ridicule the Divine precepts and exhortations, are, in spite
of their own inclinations, confounded by their power. But the principal
utility should be considered in regard to the faithful, in whom as the
Lord performs all things by his Spirit, so he neglects not the
instrumentality of his word, but uses it with great efficacy. Let it be
allowed, then, as it ought to be, that all the strength of the pious
consists in the grace of God, according to this expression of the Prophet:
“I will give them a new heart, that they may walk in my statutes.”(685)
But you will object, Why are they admonished of their duty, and not rather
left to the direction of the Spirit? Why are they importuned with
exhortations, when they cannot make more haste than is produced by the
impulse of the Spirit? Why are they chastised, if they have ever deviated
from the right way, seeing that they erred through the necessary infirmity
of the flesh? I reply, Who art thou, O man, that wouldest impose laws upon
God? If it be his will to prepare us by exhortation for the reception of
this grace, by which obedience to the exhortation is produced, what have
you to censure in this economy? If exhortations and reproofs were of no
other advantage to the pious, than to convince them of sin, they ought not
on that account to be esteemed wholly useless. Now, since, by the internal
operation of the Spirit, they are most effectual to inflame the heart with
a love of righteousness, to shake off sloth, to destroy the pleasure and
poisonous sweetness of iniquity, and, on the contrary, to render it
hateful and burdensome, who can dare to reject them as superfluous? If any
one would desire a plainer answer, let him take it thus: The operations of
God on his elect are twofold—internally, by his Spirit, externally, by his
word. By his Spirit illuminating their minds and forming their hearts to
the love and cultivation of righteousness, he makes them new creatures. By
his word he excites them to desire, seek, and obtain the same renovation.
In both he displays the efficacy of his power, according to the mode of
his dispensation. When he addresses the same word to the reprobate, though
it produces not their correction, yet he makes it effectual for another
purpose, that they may be confounded by the testimony of their consciences
now, and be rendered more inexcusable at the day of judgment. Thus Christ,
though he pronounces that “no man can come to him, except the Father draw
him,” and that the elect come when they have “heard and learned of the
Father,”(686) yet himself neglects not the office of a teacher, but with
his own mouth sedulously invites those who need the internal teachings of
the Holy Spirit to enable them to derive any benefit from his
instructions. With respect to the reprobate, Paul suggests that teaching
is not useless, because it is to them “the savour of death unto death,”
but “a sweet savour unto God.”(687)

VI. Our adversaries are very laborious in collecting testimonies of
Scripture; and this with a view, since they cannot refute us with their
weight, to overwhelm us with their number. But as in battles, when armies
come to close combat, the weak multitude, whatever pomp and ostentation
they may display, are soon defeated and routed, so it will be very easy
for us to vanquish them, with all their multitude. For as all the
passages, which they abuse in their opposition to us, when properly
classed and distributed, centre in a very few topics, one answer will be
sufficient for many of them; it will not be necessary to dwell on a
particular explication of each. Their principal argument they derive from
the precepts; which they suppose to be so proportioned to our ability,
that whatever they can be proved to require, it necessarily follows we are
capable of performing. They proceed, therefore, to a particular detail of
them, and by them measure the extent of our strength. Either, say they,
God mocks us, when he commands holiness, piety, obedience, chastity, love,
and meekness, and when he forbids impurity, idolatry, unchastity, anger,
robbery, pride, and the like; or he requires only such things as we have
power to perform. Now, almost all the precepts which they collect, may be
distributed into three classes. Some require the first conversion to God;
others simply relate to the observation of the law; others enjoin
perseverance in the grace of God already received. Let us first speak of
them all in general, and then proceed to the particulars. To represent the
ability of man as coëxtensive with the precepts of the Divine law, has
indeed for a long time not been unusual, and has some appearance of
plausibility; but it has proceeded from the grossest ignorance of the law.
For those who think it an enormous crime to say that the observation of
the law is impossible, insist on this very cogent argument, that otherwise
the law was given in vain. For they argue just as if Paul had never said
any thing concerning the law. But, pray, what is the meaning of these
expressions—“The law was added because of transgressions;” “by the law is
the knowledge of sin;” “the law worketh wrath;” “the law entered that the
offence might abound?”(688) Do they imply a necessity of its being limited
to our ability, that it might not be given in vain? Do they not rather
show that it was placed far beyond our ability, in order to convince us of
our impotence? According to the definition of the same Apostle, “the end
of the commandment is charity.”(689) But when he wishes the minds of the
Thessalonians to “abound in love,”(690) he plainly acknowledges that the
law sounds in our ears in vain, unless God inspire the principles of it
into our hearts.

VII. Indeed, if the Scripture taught only that the law is the rule of
life, to which our conduct ought to be conformed, I would immediately
accede to their opinion. But since it carefully and perspicuously states
to us various uses of the law, it will be best to consider the operation
of the law in man according to that exposition. As far as relates to the
present argument, when it has prescribed any thing to be performed by us,
it teaches that the power of obedience proceeds from the goodness of God,
and therefore invites us to pray that it may be given us. If there were
only a commandment, and no promise, there would be a trial of the
sufficiency of our strength to obey the commandment; but since the
commands are connected with promises, which declare that we must derive
not only subsidiary power, but our whole strength, from the assistance of
Divine grace, they furnish abundant evidence that we are not only unequal
to the observation of the law, but altogether incapable of it. Wherefore
let them no more urge the proportion of our ability to the precepts of the
law, as though the Lord had regulated the standard of righteousness, which
he designed to give in the law, according to the measure of our
imbecility. It should rather be concluded from the promises, how
unprepared we are of ourselves, since we stand in such universal need of
his grace. But will it, say they, be credited by any, that the Lord
addressed his law to stocks and stones? I reply, that no one will attempt
to inculcate such a notion. For neither are the impious stocks or stones,
when they are taught by the law the contrariety of their dispositions to
God, and are convicted of guilt by the testimony of their own minds; nor
the pious, when, admonished of their own impotence, they have recourse to
the grace of God. To this purpose are the following passages from
Augustine: “God gives commands which we cannot perform, that we may know
what we ought to request of him. The utility of the precepts is great, if
only so much be given to free will, that the grace of God may receive the
greater honour. Faith obtains what the law commands; and the law therefore
commands, that faith may obtain that which is commanded by the law:
moreover God requires faith itself of us, and finds not what he requires,
unless he has given what he finds.” Again: “Let God give what he enjoins,
and let him enjoin what he pleases.”

VIII. This will more clearly appear in an examination of the three kinds
of precepts which we have already mentioned. The Lord, both in the law and
in the prophets, frequently commands us to be converted to him;(691) but
the Prophet, on the other hand, says, “Turn thou me, and I shall be
turned.” “After that I was turned, I repented,” &c.(692) He commands us to
circumcise our hearts; but he announces by Moses, that this circumcision
is the work of his own hand.(693) He frequently requires newness of heart;
but elsewhere declares that this is his own gift.(694) “What God
promises,” Augustine says, “we do not perform ourselves through free will
or nature; but he does it himself by his grace.” And this is the
observation to which he himself assigns the fifth place in his enumeration
of Ticonius’s rules of Christian doctrine; that we should make a proper
distinction between the law and the promises, or between the commandments
and grace. This may suffice, in answer to those who from the precepts
infer an ability in man to obey them, that they may destroy the grace of
God, by which those very precepts are fulfilled. The precepts of the
second class are simple, enjoining on us the worship of God, constant
submission to his will, observance of his commands, and adherence to his
doctrine. But there are innumerable passages, which prove that the highest
degree of righteousness, sanctity, piety, and purity, capable of being
attained, is his own gift. Of the third class is that exhortation of Paul
and Barnabas to the faithful, mentioned by Luke, “to continue in the grace
of God.”(695) But whence the grace of perseverance should be sought, the
same Apostle informs us, when he says, “Finally, my brethren, be strong in
the Lord.”(696) In another place he cautions us to “grieve not the Holy
Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption.”(697) But
because what he there requires could not be performed by men, he prays for
the Thessalonians, “that our God would count them worthy of this calling,
and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith
with power.”(698) Thus, also, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
treating of alms, he frequently commends their benevolent and pious
disposition;(699) yet a little after he gives thanks to God for having
inclined the heart of Titus to “accept” or undertake “the exhortation.” If
Titus could not even use his own tongue to exhort others without having
been prompted by God, how should others have been inclined to act, unless
God himself had directed their hearts?

IX. Our more subtle adversaries cavil at all these testimonies, because
there is no impediment, they say, that prevents our exerting our own
ability, and God assisting our weak efforts. They adduce also passages
from the Prophets, where the accomplishment of our conversion seems to be
divided equally between God and us. “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto
you.”(700) What assistance we receive from the Lord has already been
shown, and needs not to be repeated here. I wish only this single point to
be conceded to me, that it is in vain to infer our possession of ability
to fulfil the law from God’s command to us to obey it; since it is
evident, that for the performance of all the Divine precepts, the grace of
the Legislator is both necessary for us, and promised to us; and hence it
follows, that at least more is required of us than we are capable of
performing. Nor is it possible for any cavils to explain away that passage
of Jeremiah, which assures us, that the covenant of God, made with his
ancient people, was frustrated because it was merely a literal one;(701)
and that it can only be confirmed by the influence of the Spirit, who
forms the heart to obedience. Nor does their error derive any support from
this passage: “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you.” For this
denotes, not that turning of God in which he renovates our hearts to
repentance, but that in which he declares his benevolence and kindness by
external prosperity; as by adversity he sometimes manifests his
displeasure. When the people of Israel, therefore, after having been
harassed with miseries and calamities under various forms, complained that
God was departed from them, he replies that his benignity will not fail
them if they return to rectitude of life, and to himself, who is the
standard of righteousness. The passage, then, is miserably perverted, when
it is made to represent the work of conversion as divided between God and
men. We have observed the greater brevity on these points, because it will
be a more suitable place for this argument when we treat of the Law.

X. The second description of arguments is nearly allied to the first. They
allege the promises, in which God covenants with our will; such as, “Seek
good, and not evil, that ye may live.” “If ye be willing and obedient, ye
shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be
devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”(702)
Again: “If thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then
shalt thou not remove.” “If thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice
of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I
command thee this day, the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all
nations of the earth;”(703) and other similar passages. They consider it
an absurdity and mockery, that the benefits which the Lord offers in the
promises are referred to our will, unless it be in our power either to
confirm or to frustrate them. And truly it is very easy to amplify this
subject with eloquent complaints, that we are cruelly mocked by the Lord,
when he announces that his benignity depends on our will, if that will be
not in our own power; that this would be egregious liberality in God, to
present his benefits to us in such a manner, that we should have no power
to enjoy them; and that there must be a strange certainty in his promises,
if they depend on a thing impossible, so that they can never be fulfilled.
Concerning promises of this kind, to which a condition is annexed, we
shall speak in another place, and evince that there is no absurdity in the
impossibility of their completion. With respect to the present question, I
deny that God is cruel or insincere to us, when he invites us to merit his
favours, though he knows us to be altogether incapable of doing this. For
as the promises are offered equally to the faithful and to the impious,
they have their use with them both. As by the precepts God disturbs the
consciences of the impious, that they may not enjoy too much pleasure in
sin without any recollection of his judgments, so in the promises he calls
them to attest how unworthy they are of his kindness. For who can deny
that it is most equitable and proper for the Lord to bless those who
worship him, and severely to punish the despisers of his majesty? God
acts, therefore, in a right and orderly manner, when, addressing the
impious, who are bound with the fetters of sin, he adds to the promises
this condition, that when they shall have departed from their wickedness,
they shall then, and not till then, enjoy his favours; even for this sole
reason, that they may know that they are deservedly excluded from those
benefits which belong to the worshippers of the true God. On the other
hand, since he designs by all means to stimulate the faithful to implore
his grace, it will not be at all strange, if he tries in his promises
also, what we have shown he does with considerable effect in his precepts.
Being instructed by the precepts concerning the will of God, we are
apprized of our misery, in having our hearts so completely averse to it;
and are at the same time excited to invoke his Spirit, that we may be
directed by him into the right way. But because our sluggishness is not
sufficiently roused by the precepts, God adds his promises, to allure us
by their sweetness to the love of his commands. Now, in proportion to our
increased love of righteousness will be the increase of our fervour in
seeking the grace of God. See how, in these addresses, “If ye be willing,”
“If ye be obedient,” the Lord neither attributes to us an unlimited power
to will and to obey, nor yet mocks us on account of our impotence.

XI. The third class of arguments also has a great affinity with the
preceding. For they produce passages in which God reproaches an ungrateful
people, that it was wholly owing to their own fault that they did not
receive blessings of all kinds from his indulgent hand. Of this kind are
the following passages: “The Amalekites and the Canaanites are there
before you, and ye shall fall by the sword; because ye are turned away
from the Lord.”(704) “Because I called you, but ye answered not, therefore
will I do unto this house as I have done to Shiloh.”(705) Again: “This is
a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth
correction: the Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his
wrath.”(706) Again: “They obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law;
they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore
thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them.”(707) How, say they,
could such reproaches be applicable to those who might immediately reply,
It is true that we desired prosperity and dreaded adversity; but our not
obeying the Lord, or hearkening to his voice, in order to obtain good and
to avoid evil, has been owing to our want of liberty, and subjection to
the dominion of sin. It is in vain, therefore, to reproach us with evils,
which we had no power to avoid. In answer to this, leaving the pretext of
necessity, which is but a weak and futile plea, I ask whether they can
exculpate themselves from all guilt. For if they are convicted of any
fault, the Lord justly reproaches them with their perverseness, as the
cause of their not having experienced the advantage of his clemency. Let
them answer, then, if they can deny that their own perverse will was the
cause of their obstinacy. If they find the source of the evil within
themselves, why do they so earnestly inquire after extraneous causes, that
they may not appear to have been the authors of their own ruin? But if it
be true that sinners are deprived of the favours of God, and chastised
with his punishments, for their own sin, and only for their own, there is
great reason why they should hear those reproaches from his mouth; that if
they obstinately persist in their crimes, they may learn in their
calamities rather to accuse and detest their iniquity, than to charge God
with unrighteous cruelty; that if they have not cast off all docility,
they may become weary of their sins, the demerits of which they see to be
misery and ruin, and may return into the good way, acknowledging in a
serious confession the very thing for which the Lord rebukes them. And
that those reproofs, which are quoted from the Prophets, have produced
this beneficial effect on the faithful, is evident from the solemn prayer
of Daniel, given us in his ninth chapter. Of the former use of them we
find an example in the Jews, to whom Jeremiah is commanded to declare the
cause of their miseries; though nothing could befall them, otherwise than
the Lord had foretold. “Thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but
they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they
will not answer thee.”(708) For what purpose, then, it will be asked, did
they speak to persons that were deaf? It was in order that, in spite of
their disinclination and aversion, they might know what was declared to
them to be true; that it was an abominable sacrilege to transfer to God
the guilt of their crimes, which belonged solely to themselves. With these
few solutions, we may very easily despatch the immense multitude of
testimonies, which the enemies of the grace of God are accustomed to
collect, both from the precepts of the law, and from the expostulations
directed to transgressors of it, in order to establish the idol of free
will. In one psalm the Jews are stigmatized as “a stubborn and rebellious
generation, a generation that set not their heart aright.”(709) In
another, the Psalmist exhorts the men of his age to “harden not their
hearts;”(710) which implies, that all the guilt of rebellion lies in the
perverseness of men. But it is absurd to infer from this passage that the
heart is equally flexible to either side; whereas “the preparation” of it
is “from the Lord.”(711) The Psalmist says, “I have inclined my heart to
perform thy statutes;”(712) because he had devoted himself to the service
of God without any reluctance, but with a cheerful readiness of mind. Yet
he boasts not of being himself the author of this inclination, which in
the same psalm he acknowledges to be the gift of God.(713) We should
remember, therefore, the admonition of Paul, when he commands the faithful
to “work out” their “own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God
which worketh in” them “both to will and to do.”(714) He assigns them a
part to perform, that they may not indulge themselves in carnal
negligence; but by inculcating “fear and trembling,” he humbles them, and
reminds them that this very thing, which they are commanded to do, is the
peculiar work of God. In this he plainly suggests that the faithful act,
if I may be allowed the expression, passively, inasmuch as they are
furnished with strength from heaven, that they may arrogate nothing at all
to themselves. Wherefore, when Peter exhorts us to “add to” our “faith,
virtue,”(715) he does not allot us an under part to be performed, as
though we could do any thing separately, of ourselves; he only arouses the
indolence of the flesh, by which faith itself is frequently extinguished.
To the same purpose is the exhortation of Paul: “Quench not the
Spirit;”(716) for slothfulness gradually prevails over the faithful,
unless it be corrected. But if any one should infer from this, that it is
at his own option to cherish the light offered him, his ignorance will
easily be refuted; since this diligence which Paul requires, proceeds only
from God. For we are also frequently commanded to “cleanse ourselves from
all filthiness,”(717) whilst the Spirit claims the office of sanctifying
us exclusively to himself. In short, that what properly belongs to God is,
by concession, transferred to us, is plain from the words of John: “He
that is begotten of God, keepeth himself.”(718) The preachers of free will
lay hold of this expression, as though we were saved partly by the Divine
power, partly by our own; as though we did not receive from heaven this
very preservation which the Apostle mentions. Wherefore also Christ prays
that his Father would “keep” us “from evil;”(719) and we know that the
pious, in their warfare against Satan, obtain the victory by no other arms
than those which are furnished by God. Therefore Peter, having enjoined us
to “purify” our “souls, in obeying the truth,” immediately adds, as a
correction, “through the Spirit.”(720) Finally, the impotence of all human
strength in the spiritual conflict is briefly demonstrated by John when he
says, “Whosoever is born of God cannot sin; for his seed remaineth in
him:”(721) and in another place he adds the reason, that “this is the
victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”(722)

XII. There is also a testimony cited from the law of Moses, which appears
directly repugnant to our solution. For, after having published the law,
he makes the following solemn declaration to the people: “This
commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee,
neither is it far off: it is not in heaven: but the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”(723) If
these expressions be understood merely of the precepts, I grant that they
have much weight in the present argument. For although we might easily
elude their force, by saying that they treat of the facility and
promptitude, not of observance, but of knowledge, yet still perhaps they
might leave some doubt. But the Apostle, in whose expositions there is no
ambiguity, removes all our doubts, by affirming that Moses here spake of
the doctrine of the gospel.(724) But if any one should obstinately
contend, that Paul has violently perverted the passage from its genuine
meaning, by applying it to the gospel, although his presumption could not
be acquitted of impiety, yet there is enough to refute him, independently
of the authority of the Apostle. For, if Moses spoke only of the precepts,
he was deceiving the people with the vainest confidence. For would they
not have precipitated themselves into ruin, if they had attempted the
observance of the law in their own strength, as a thing of no difficulty?
What, then, becomes of the very obvious facility with which the law may be
observed, when there appears no access to it but over a fatal precipice?
Wherefore nothing is more certain, than that Moses in these words
comprehended the covenant of mercy, which he had promulgated together with
the precepts of the law. For in a preceding verse he had taught that our
hearts must be circumcised by God, in order that we may love him.(725)
Therefore he placed this facility, of which he afterwards speaks, not in
the strength of man, but in the assistance and protection of the Holy
Spirit, who powerfully accomplishes his work in our infirmity. However,
the passage is not to be understood simply of the precepts, but rather of
the promises of the gospel, which are so far from maintaining an ability
in us to obtain righteousness, that they prove us to be utterly destitute
of it. Paul, considering the same, proves by this testimony that salvation
is proposed to us in the gospel, not under that hard, difficult, and
impossible condition, prescribed to us in the law, which pronounces it
attainable only by those who have fulfilled all the commandments, but
under a condition easily and readily to be performed. Therefore this
testimony contributes nothing to support the liberty of the human will.

XIII. Some other passages also are frequently objected, which show that
God sometimes tries men by withdrawing the assistance of his grace, and
waits to see what course they will pursue; as in Hosea: “I will go and
return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my
face.”(726) It would be ridiculous, they say, for the Lord to consider,
whether Israel would seek his face, unless their minds were flexible,
capable of inclining either way, according to their own pleasure; as if it
were not very common for God, in the Prophets, to represent himself as
despising and rejecting his people, till they should amend their lives.
But what will our adversaries infer from such threats? If they maintain,
that those who are deserted by God, are capable of converting themselves,
they oppose the uniform declarations of Scripture. If they acknowledge
that the grace of God is necessary to conversion, what is their
controversy with us? But they will reply, that they concede its necessity
in such a sense as to maintain that man still retains some power. How do
they prove it? Certainly not from this or any similar passages. For it is
one thing to depart from a man, to observe what he will do when forsaken
and left to himself, and another to assist his little strength in
proportion to his imbecility. What, then, it will be inquired, is implied
in such forms of expression? I reply, that the import of them is just as
if God had said, Since admonitions, exhortations, and reproofs, produce no
good effect on this rebellious people, I will withdraw myself for a little
while, and silently leave them to affliction. I will see whether, at some
future period, after a series of calamities, they will remember me, and
seek my face. The departure of the Lord signifies the removal of his word.
His observing what men will do, signifies his concealing himself in
silence, and exercising them for a season with various afflictions. He
does both to humble us the more; for we should sooner be confounded than
corrected with the scourges of adversity, unless he rendered us docile by
his Spirit. Now, when the Lord, offended, and, as it were, wearied by our
extreme obstinacy, leaves us for a time, by the removal of his word, in
which he is accustomed to manifest his presence with us, and makes the
experiment, what we shall do in his absence,—it is falsely inferred from
this, that there is some power of free will, which he observes and proves;
since he acts in this manner with no other design than to bring us to a
sense and acknowledgment of our own nothingness.

XIV. They argue also from the manner of expression which is invariably
observed, both in the Scripture and in the common conversation of mankind.
For good actions are called our own, and we are said to perform what is
holy and pleasing to the Lord, as well as to commit sins. But if sins be
justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, certainly some share
ought to be, for the same reason, assigned to us also in works of
righteousness. For it would be absurd that we should be said to do those
things, to the performance of which, being incapable of any exertion of
our own, we were impelled by God, as so many stones. Wherefore, though we
allow the grace of God the preëminence, yet these expressions indicate
that our own endeavours hold at least the second place. If it were only
alleged, that good works are called our own, I would reply, that the bread
which we pray to God to give us, is called ours. What will they prove by
this term, but that what otherwise by no means belongs to us, becomes ours
through the benignity and gratuitous munificence of God? Therefore let
them either ridicule the same absurdity in the Lord’s prayer, or no longer
esteem it ridiculous, that good works are denominated ours, in which we
have no propriety but from the liberality of God. But there is rather more
force in what follows; that the Scripture frequently affirms that we
ourselves worship God, work righteousness, obey the law, and perform good
works. These being the proper offices of the understanding and will, how
could they justly be referred to the Spirit, and at the same time be
attributed to us, if there were not some union of our exertions with the
grace of God? We shall easily extricate ourselves from these objections,
if we properly consider the manner in which the Spirit of the Lord
operates in the saints. The similitude with which they try to cast an
odium on our sentiments, is quite foreign to the subject; for who is so
senseless as to suppose that there is no difference between impelling a
man, and throwing a stone? Nor does any such consequence follow from our
doctrine. We rank among the natural powers of man, approving, rejecting;
willing, nilling; attempting, resisting; that is, a power to approve
vanity, and to reject true excellence; to will what is evil, to refuse
what is good; to attempt iniquity, and to resist righteousness. What
concern has the Lord in this? If it be his will to use this depravity as
an instrument of his wrath, he directs and appoints it according to his
pleasure, in order to execute his good work by means of a wicked hand.
Shall we, then, compare a wicked man who is thus subservient to the Divine
power, while he only studies to gratify his own corrupt inclination, to a
stone which is hurled by an extrinsic impulse, and driven along without
any motion, sense, or will of its own? We perceive what a vast difference
there is. But how does the Lord operate in good men, to whom the question
principally relates? When he erects his kingdom within them, he by his
Spirit restrains their will, that it may not be hurried away by unsteady
and violent passions, according to the propensity of nature; that it may
be inclined to holiness and righteousness, he bends, composes, forms, and
directs it according to the rule of his own righteousness; that it may not
stagger or fall, he establishes and confirms it by the power of his
Spirit. For which reason Augustine says, “You will reply to me, Then we
are actuated; we do not act. Yes, you both act and are actuated; and you
act well, when you are actuated by that which is good. The Spirit of God,
who actuates you, assists those who act, and calls himself a helper,
because you also perform something.” In the first clause he inculcates
that the agency of man is not destroyed by the influence of the Spirit;
because the will, which is guided to aspire to what is good, belongs to
his nature. But the inference which he immediately subjoins, from the term
_help_, that we also perform something, we should not understand in such a
sense, as though he attributed any thing to us independently; but in order
to avoid encouraging us in indolence, he reconciles the Divine agency with
ours in this way; that to will is from nature, to will what is good is
from grace. Therefore he had just before said, “Without the assistance of
God, we shall be not only unable to conquer, but even to contend.”

XV. Hence it appears that the grace of God, in the sense in which this
word is used when we treat of regeneration, is the rule of the Spirit for
directing and governing the human will. He cannot govern it unless he
correct, reform, and renovate it; whence we say that the commencement of
regeneration is an abolition of what is from ourselves; nor unless he also
excite, actuate, impel, support, and restrain it; whence we truly assert,
that all the actions which proceed from this are entirely of the Spirit.
At the same time, we fully admit the truth of what Augustine teaches, that
the will is not destroyed by grace, but rather repaired; for these two
things are perfectly consistent—that the human will may be said to be
repaired, when, by the correction of its depravity and perverseness, it is
directed according to the true standard of righteousness; and also that a
new will may be said to be created in man, because the natural will is so
vitiated and corrupted, that it needs to be formed entirely anew. Now,
there is no reason why we may not justly be said to perform that which the
Spirit of God performs in us, although our own will contributes nothing of
itself, independently of his grace. And, therefore, we should remember
what we have before cited from Augustine, that many persons labour in vain
to find in the human will some good, properly its own. For whatever
mixture men study to add from the power of free will to the grace of God,
is only a corruption of it; just as if any one should dilute good wine
with dirty or bitter water. But although whatever good there is in the
human will, proceeds wholly from the internal influence of the Spirit, yet
because we have a natural faculty of willing, we are, not without reason,
said to do those things, the praise of which God justly claims to himself;
first, because whatever God does in us, becomes ours by his benignity,
provided we do not apprehend it to originate from ourselves; secondly,
because the understanding is ours, the will is ours, and the effort is
ours, which are all directed by him to that which is good.

XVI. The other testimonies, which they rake together from every quarter,
will not much embarrass even persons of moderate capacities, who have well
digested the answers already given. They quote this passage from Genesis:
“Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him;”(727) or, as
they would translate the words, “Subject to thee shall be its appetite,
and thou shalt rule over it;” which they explain to relate to sin, as
though the Lord promised Cain, that the power of sin should not obtain
dominion over his mind, if he would labour to overcome it. But we say that
it is more agreeable to the tenor of the context, to understand it to be
spoken concerning Abel. For the design of God in it is to prove the
iniquity of that envy, which Cain had conceived against his brother. This
he does by two reasons: first, that it was in vain for him to meditate
crimes in order to excel his brother in the sight of God, with whom no
honour is given but to righteousness; secondly, that he was extremely
ungrateful for the favours God had already conferred on him, since he
could not bear his brother, even though subject to his authority. But that
we may not appear to adopt this explanation, merely because the other is
unfavourable to our tenets, let us admit that God spake concerning sin. If
it be so, then what the Lord there declares, is either promised or
commanded by him. If it be a command, we have already demonstrated that it
affords no proof of the power of men: if it be a promise, where is the
completion of the promise, seeing that Cain fell under the dominion of
sin, over which he ought to have prevailed? They will say, that the
promise includes a tacit condition, as though it had been declared to him
that he should obtain the victory if he would contend for it; but who can
admit these subterfuges? For if this dominion be referred to sin, the
speech is doubtless a command, expressive, not of our ability, but of our
duty, which remains our duty even though it exceed our ability. But the
subject itself, and grammatical propriety, require a comparison to be made
between Cain and Abel; in which the elder brother would not have been
placed below the younger, if he had not degraded himself by his own
wickedness.

XVII. They adduce also the testimony of the Apostle, who says, that “it is
not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth
mercy;”(728) whence they conclude, that there is something in the will and
endeavour, which, though ineffectual of itself, is rendered successful by
the assistance of the Divine mercy. But if they would soberly examine the
subject there treated by Paul, they would not so inconsiderately pervert
this passage. I know that they can allege the suffrages of Origen and
Jerome in defence of their exposition; and in opposition to them, I could
produce that of Augustine. But their opinions are of no importance to us
if we can ascertain what was the meaning of Paul. He is there teaching,
that salvation is provided for them alone, whom the Lord favours with his
mercy; but that ruin and perdition await all those whom he has not chosen.
He had shown, by the example of Pharaoh, the condition of the reprobate;
and had confirmed the certainty of gratuitous election by the testimony of
Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” His conclusion is,
that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
that showeth mercy.” If this be understood to imply that our will and
endeavour are not sufficient, because they are not equal to so great a
work, Paul has expressed himself with great impropriety. Away, therefore,
with these sophisms: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth;” therefore there is some willing and some running. For the
meaning of Paul is more simple—It is neither our willing nor our running,
which procures for us a way of salvation, but solely the mercy of God. For
he expresses here the same sentiment as he does to Titus, when he says,
“that the kindness and love of God towards man appeared, not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy.”(729) The
very persons, who argue that Paul, in denying that it is of him that
willeth or of him that runneth, implies that there is some willing and
some running, would not allow me to use the same mode of reasoning, that
we have done some good works, because Paul denies that we have obtained
the favour of God by any works which we have done. But if they perceive a
flaw in this argumentation, let them open their eyes, and they will
perceive a similar fallacy in their own. For the argument on which
Augustine rests the dispute is unanswerable: “If it be said, that it is
not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, merely because neither
our willing nor our running is sufficient, it may, on the contrary, be
retorted, that it is not of the mercy of God, because that does not act
alone.”(730) The latter position being absurd, Augustine justly concludes
the meaning of this passage to be, that there is no good will in man,
unless it be prepared by the Lord; not but that we ought to will and to
run, but because God works in us both the one and the other. With similar
want of judgment, some pervert this declaration of Paul, “We are labourers
together with God;”(731) which, without doubt, is restricted solely to
ministers, who are denominated “workers with him,” not that they
contribute any thing of themselves, but because God makes use of their
agency, after he has qualified them and furnished them with the necessary
talents.

XVIII. They produce a passage from Ecclesiasticus, which is well known to
be a book of doubtful authority. But though we should not reject it,
which, nevertheless, if we chose, we might justly do, what testimony does
it afford in support of free will? The writer says, that man, as soon as
he was created, was left in the power of his own will; that precepts were
given to him, which if he kept, he should also be kept by them; that he
had life and death, good and evil, set before him; and that whatever he
desired, would be given him.(732) Let it be granted, that man at his
creation was endowed with a power of choosing life or death. What if we
reply, that he has lost it? I certainly do not intend to contradict
Solomon, who asserts that “God hath made man upright; but they have sought
out many inventions.”(733) But man, by his degeneracy, having shipwrecked
both himself and all his excellences, whatever is attributed to his
primitive state, it does not immediately follow that it belongs to his
vitiated and degenerated nature. Therefore I reply, not only to them, but
also to Ecclesiasticus himself, whoever he be: If you design to teach man
to seek within himself a power to attain salvation, your authority is not
so great in our estimation as to obtain even the smallest degree of
credit, in opposition to the undoubted word of God. But if you only aim to
repress the malignity of the flesh, which vainly attempts to vindicate
itself by transferring its crimes to God, and you therefore reply, that
man was originally endued with rectitude, from which it is evident that he
was the cause of his own ruin, I readily assent to it; provided we also
agree in this, that through his own guilt he is now despoiled of those
ornaments with which God invested him at the beginning; and so unite in
confessing, that in his present situation he needs not an advocate, but a
physician.

XIX. But there is nothing which our adversaries have more frequently in
their mouths, than the parable of Christ concerning the traveller, who was
left by robbers in the road half dead.(734) I know it is the common
opinion of almost all writers, that the calamity of the human race is
represented under the type of this traveller. Hence they argue, that man
is not so mutilated by the violence of sin and the devil, but that he
still retains some relics of his former excellences, since he is said to
have been left only half dead; for what becomes of the remaining portion
of life, unless there remain some rectitude both of reason and will? In
the first place, what could they say, if I refused to admit their
allegory? For there is no doubt but that this interpretation, invented by
the fathers, is foreign to the genuine sense of our Lord’s discourse.
Allegories ought to be extended no further than they are supported by the
authority of Scripture; for they are far from affording of themselves a
sufficient foundation for any doctrines. Nor is there any want of
arguments by which, if I chose, I could completely confute this erroneous
notion; for the word of God does not leave man in the possession of a
proportion of life, but teaches, that as far as respects happiness of
life, he is wholly dead. Paul, when speaking of our redemption, says, not
that we were recovered when half dead, but that “even when we were dead,
we were raised up.” He calls not on the half dead, but on those who are in
the grave, sleeping the sleep of death, to receive the illumination of
Christ.(735) And the Lord himself speaks in a similar manner, when he
says, that “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the
voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”(736) With what
face can they oppose a slight allusion against so many positive
expressions? Yet let this allegory even be admitted as a clear testimony;
what will it enable them to extort from us? Man, they will say, is but
half dead; therefore he has some faculty remaining entire. I grant that he
has a mind capable of understanding, though it attains not to heavenly and
spiritual wisdom; he has some idea of virtue; he has some sense of the
Deity, though he acquires not the true knowledge of God. But what is to be
concluded from all this? It certainly does not disprove the assertion of
Augustine, which has received the general approbation even of the schools,
that man, since his fall, has been deprived of the gifts of grace on which
salvation depends; but that the natural ones are corrupted and polluted.
Let us hold this, then, as an undoubted truth, which no opposition can
ever shake—that the mind of man is so completely alienated from the
righteousness of God, that it conceives, desires, and undertakes every
thing that is impious, perverse, base, impure, and flagitious; that his
heart is so thoroughly infected by the poison of sin, that it cannot
produce any thing but what is corrupt; and that if at any time men do any
thing apparently good, yet the mind always remains involved in hypocrisy
and fallacious obliquity, and the heart enslaved by its inward
perverseness.

Chapter VI. Redemption For Lost Man To Be Sought In Christ.

The whole human race having perished in the person of Adam, our original
excellence and dignity, which we have noticed, so far from being
advantageous to us, only involves us in greater ignominy, till God, who
does not acknowledge the pollution and corruption of man by sin to be his
work, appears as a Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.
Therefore, since we are fallen from life into death, all that knowledge of
God as a Creator, of which we have been treating, would be useless, unless
it were succeeded by faith exhibiting God to us as a Father in Christ.
This, indeed, was the genuine order of nature, that the fabric of the
world should be a school in which we might learn piety, and thence be
conducted to eternal life and perfect felicity. But since the fall,
whithersoever we turn our eyes, the curse of God meets us on every side,
which, whilst it seizes innocent creatures and involves them in our guilt,
must necessarily overwhelm our souls with despair. For though God is
pleased still to manifest his paternal kindness to us in various ways, yet
we cannot, from a contemplation of the world, conclude that he is our
Father, when our conscience disturbs us within, and convinces us that our
sins afford a just reason why God should abandon us, and no longer esteem
us as his children. We are also chargeable with stupidity and ingratitude;
for our minds, being blinded, do not perceive the truth; and all our
senses being corrupted, we wickedly defraud God of his glory. We must
therefore subscribe to the declaration of Paul: “For after that in the
wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the
foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”(737) What he
denominates the wisdom of God, is this magnificent theatre of heaven and
earth, which is replete with innumerable miracles, and from the
contemplation of which we ought wisely to acquire the knowledge of God.
But because we have made so little improvement in this way, he recalls us
to the faith of Christ, which is despised by unbelievers on account of its
apparent folly. Wherefore, though the preaching of the cross is not
agreeable to human reason, we ought, nevertheless, to embrace it with all
humility, if we desire to return to God our Creator, from whom we have
been alienated, and to have him reassume the character of our Father.
Since the fall of the first man, no knowledge of God, without the
Mediator, has been available to salvation. For Christ speaks not of his
own time only, but comprehends all ages, when he says that “this is life
eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent.”(738) And this aggravates the stupidity of those who set open the
gate of heaven to all unbelievers and profane persons, without the grace
of Christ, whom the Scripture universally represents as the only door of
entrance into salvation. But if any man would restrict this declaration of
Christ to the period of the first promulgation of the gospel, we are
prepared with a refutation. For it has been a common opinion, in all ages
and nations, that those who are alienated from God, and pronounced
accursed, and children of wrath, cannot please him without a
reconciliation. Here add the answer of Christ to the woman of Samaria: “Ye
worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the
Jews.”(739) In these words he at once condemns all the religions of the
Gentiles as false, and assigns a reason for it; because under the law the
Redeemer was promised only to the chosen people; whence it follows that no
worship has ever been acceptable to God, unless it had respect to Christ.
Hence also Paul affirms that all the Gentiles were without God, and
destitute of the hope of life.(740) Now, as John teaches us that life was
from the beginning in Christ, and that the whole world are fallen from
it,(741) it is necessary to return to that fountain; and therefore Christ
asserts himself to be the life, as he is the author of the propitiation.
And, indeed, the celestial inheritance belongs exclusively to the children
of God. But it is very unreasonable that they should be considered in the
place and order of his children, who have not been engrafted into the body
of his only begotten Son. And John plainly declares that “they who believe
in his name become the sons of God.”(742) But as it is not my design in
this place to treat professedly of faith in Christ, these cursory hints
shall at present suffice.

II. Therefore God never showed himself propitious to his ancient people,
nor afforded them any hope of his favour, without a Mediator. I forbear to
speak of the legal sacrifices, by which the faithful were plainly and
publicly instructed that salvation was to be sought solely in that
expiation, which has been accomplished by Christ alone. I only assert,
that the happiness of the Church has always been founded on the person of
Christ. For though God comprehended in his covenant all the posterity of
Abraham, yet Paul judiciously reasons, that Christ is in reality that Seed
in whom all the nations were to be blessed;(743) since we know that the
natural descendants of that patriarch were not reckoned as his seed. For,
to say nothing of Ishmael and others, what was the cause, that of the two
sons of Isaac, the twin‐brothers Esau and Jacob, even when they were yet
unborn, one should be chosen and the other rejected? How came it to pass
that the first‐born was rejected, and that the younger obtained his
birthright? How came the majority of the people to be disinherited? It is
evident, therefore, that the seed of Abraham is reckoned principally in
one person, and that the promised salvation was not manifested till the
coming of Christ, whose office it is to collect what had been scattered
abroad. The first adoption, therefore, of the chosen people, depended on
the grace of the Mediator; which, though it is not so plainly expressed by
Moses, yet appears to have been generally well known to all the pious. For
before the appointment of any king in the nation, Hannah, the mother of
Samuel, speaking of the felicity of the faithful, thus expressed herself
in her song: “The Lord shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the
horn of his anointed.”(744) Her meaning in these words is, that God will
bless his Church. And to this agrees the oracle, which is soon after
introduced: “I will raise me up a faithful priest, and he shall walk
before mine anointed.” And there is no doubt that it was the design of the
heavenly Father to exhibit in David and his posterity a lively image of
Christ. With a design to exhort the pious, therefore, to the fear of God,
he enjoins them to “kiss the Son;”(745) which agrees with this declaration
of the gospel: “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the
Father.”(746) Therefore, though the kingdom was weakened by the revolt of
the ten tribes, yet the covenant, which God had made with David and his
successors, could not but stand, as he also declared by the Prophets: “I
will not rend away all the kingdom, but will give one tribe to thy son,
for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have
chosen.”(747) This is repeated again and again. It is also expressly
added, “I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever.”(748)
At a little distance of time it is said, “For David’s sake did the Lord
his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to
establish Jerusalem.”(749) Even when the state was come to the verge of
ruin, it was again said, “The Lord would not destroy Judah, for David his
servant’s sake, as he promised him to give him alway a light, and to his
children.”(750) The sum of the whole is this—that David alone was chosen,
to the rejection of all others, as the perpetual object of the Divine
favour; as it is said, in another place, “He forsook the tabernacle of
Shiloh; he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of
Ephraim; but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion, which he loved. He
chose David also his servant, to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his
inheritance.”(751) Finally, it pleased God to preserve his Church in such
a way, that its security and salvation should depend on that head. David
therefore exclaims, “The Lord is their strength, and he is the saving
strength of his anointed;”(752) and immediately adds this petition: “Save
thy people, and bless thine inheritance;” signifying that the state of the
Church is inseparably connected with the government of Christ. In the same
sense he elsewhere says, “Save, Lord; let the king hear us when we
call.”(753) In these words he clearly teaches us that the faithful resort
to God for assistance, with no other confidence than because they are
sheltered under the protection of the king. This is to be inferred from
another psalm: “Save, O Lord! Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the
Lord;”(754) where it is sufficiently evident that the faithful are invited
to Christ, that they may hope to be saved by the power of God. The same
thing is alluded to in another prayer, where the whole Church implores the
mercy of God: “Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the
Son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.”(755) For though the
author of the psalm deplores the dissipation of all the people, yet he
ardently prays for their restoration in their head alone. But when
Jeremiah, after the people were driven into exile, the land laid waste,
and all things apparently ruined, bewails the miseries of the Church, he
principally laments that by the subversion of the kingdom, the hope of the
faithful was cut off. “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the
Lord, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall
live among the heathen.”(756) Hence it is sufficiently evident, that since
God cannot be propitious to mankind but through the Mediator, Christ was
always exhibited to the holy fathers under the law, as the object to which
they should direct their faith.

III. Now, when consolation is promised in affliction, but especially when
the deliverance of the Church is described, the standard of confidence and
hope is erected in Christ alone. “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of
thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed,”(757) says Habakkuk.
And whenever the Prophets mention the restoration of the Church, they
recall the people to the promise given to David concerning the perpetuity
of his kingdom. Nor is this to be wondered at; for otherwise there would
be no stability in the covenant. To this refers the memorable answer of
Isaiah. For when he saw that his declaration concerning the raising of the
siege, and the present deliverance of Jerusalem, was rejected by that
unbelieving king, Ahaz, he makes rather an abrupt transition to the
Messiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son;”(758)
indirectly suggesting, that although the king and the people, in their
perverseness, rejected the promise which had been given them, as though
they would purposely labour to invalidate the truth of God, yet that his
covenant would not be frustrated, but that the Redeemer should come at his
appointed time. Finally, all the Prophets, in order to display the Divine
mercy, were constantly careful to exhibit to view that kingdom of David,
from which redemption and eternal salvation were to proceed. Thus Isaiah:
“I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of
David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people;”(759) because
in desperate circumstances the faithful could have no hope, any otherwise
than by his interposition as a witness, that God would be merciful to
them. Thus also Jeremiah, to comfort them who were in despair, says,
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a
righteous Branch. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely.”(760) And Ezekiel: “I will set up one Shepherd over them, and he
shall feed them, even my servant David. And I the Lord will be their God,
and my servant David a prince among them; and I will make with them a
covenant of peace.”(761) Again, in another place, having treated of their
incredible renovation, he says, “David my servant shall be king over them;
and they all shall have one Shepherd. Moreover I will make a covenant of
peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them.”(762) I
select a few passages out of many, because I only wish to apprize the
reader, that the hope of the pious has never been placed any where but in
Christ. All the other Prophets also uniformly speak the same language. As
Hosea: “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be
gathered together, and appoint themselves one head.”(763) And in a
subsequent chapter he is still more explicit: “The children of Israel
shall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king.”(764)
Micah also, discoursing on the return of the people, expressly declares,
“their king shall pass before them, and the Lord on the head of
them.”(765) Thus Amos, intending to predict the restoration of the people,
says, “In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,
and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins.”(766)
This implies that the only standard of salvation was the restoration of
the regal dignity in the family of David, which was accomplished in
Christ. Zechariah, therefore, living nearer to the time of the
manifestation of Christ, more openly exclaims, “Rejoice greatly, O
daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh
unto thee: he is just, and having salvation.”(767) This corresponds with a
passage from a psalm, already cited: “The Lord is the saving strength of
his anointed. Save thy people;”(768) where salvation is extended from the
head to the whole body.

IV. It was the will of God that the Jews should be instructed by these
prophecies, so that they might direct their eyes to Christ whenever they
wanted deliverance. Nor, indeed, notwithstanding their shameful
degeneracy, could the memory of this general principle ever be
obliterated—that God would be the deliverer of the Church by the hand of
Christ, according to his promise to David; and that in this manner the
covenant of grace, in which God had adopted his elect, would at length be
confirmed. Hence it came to pass, that when Christ, a little before his
death, entered into Jerusalem, that song was heard from the mouths of
children, “Hosanna to the Son of David.”(769) For the subject of their
song appears to have been derived from a sentiment generally received and
avowed by the people, that there remained to them no other pledge of the
mercy of God, but in the advent of the Redeemer. For this reason Christ
commands his disciples to believe in him, that they may distinctly and
perfectly believe in God: “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.”(770)
For though, strictly speaking, faith ascends from Christ to the Father,
yet he suggests, that though it were even fixed on God, yet it would
gradually decline, unless he interposed, to preserve its stability. The
majesty of God is otherwise far above the reach of mortals, who are like
worms crawling upon the earth. Wherefore, though I do not reject that
common observation that God is the object of faith, yet I consider it as
requiring some correction. For it is not without reason that Christ is
called “the image of the invisible God;”(771) but by this appellation we
are reminded, that unless God reveal himself to us in Christ, we cannot
have that knowledge of him which is necessary to salvation. For although
among the Jews the scribes had by false glosses obscured the declarations
of the Prophets concerning the Redeemer, yet Christ assumed it for
granted, as if allowed by common consent, that there was no other remedy
for the confusion into which the Jews had fallen, nor any other mode of
deliverance for the Church, but the exhibition of the Mediator. There was
not, indeed, such a general knowledge as there ought to have been, of the
principle taught by Paul, that “Christ is the end of the law;”(772) but
the truth and certainty of this evidently appears both from the law itself
and from the Prophets. I am not yet treating of faith; there will be a
more suitable place for that subject in another part of the work. Only let
this be well fixed in the mind of the reader; that the first step to piety
is to know that God is our Father, to protect, govern, and support us till
he gathers us into the eternal inheritance of his kingdom; that hence it
is plain, as we have before asserted, that there can be no saving
knowledge of God without Christ; and consequently that from the beginning
of the world he has always been manifested to all the elect, that they
might look to him, and repose all their confidence in him. In this sense
Irenæus says that the Father, who is infinite in himself, becomes finite
in the Son; because he has accommodated himself to our capacity, that he
may not overwhelm our minds with the infinity of his glory.(773) And
fanatics, not considering this, pervert a useful observation into an
impious reverie, as though there were in Christ merely a portion of Deity,
an emanation from the infinite perfection; whereas the sole meaning of
that writer is, that God is apprehended in Christ, and in him alone. The
assertion of John has been verified in all ages, “Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father.”(774) For though many in ancient times
gloried in being worshippers of the Supreme Deity, the Creator of heaven
and earth, yet, because they had no Mediator, it was impossible for them
to have any real acquaintance with the mercy of God, or persuasion that he
was their Father. Therefore, as they did not hold the head, that is,
Christ, all their knowledge of God was obscure and unsettled; whence it
came to pass, that degenerating at length into gross and vile
superstitions, they betrayed their ignorance, like the Turks in modern
times; who, though they boast of having the Creator of heaven and earth
for their God, yet only substitute an idol instead of the true God as long
as they remain enemies to Christ.

Chapter VII. The Law Given, Not To Confine The Ancient People To Itself,
But To Encourage Their Hope Of Salvation In Christ, Till The Time Of His
Coming.

From the deduction we have made, it may easily be inferred, that the law
was superadded about four hundred years after the death of Abraham, not to
draw away the attention of the chosen people from Christ, but rather to
keep their minds waiting for his advent, to inflame their desires and
confirm their expectations, that they might not be discouraged by so long
a delay. By the word _law_, I intend, not only the decalogue, which
prescribes the rule of a pious and righteous life, but the form of
religion delivered from God by the hands of Moses. For Moses was not made
a legislator to abolish the blessing promised to the seed of Abraham; on
the contrary, we see him on every occasion reminding the Jews of that
gracious covenant made with their fathers, to which they were heirs; as
though the object of his mission had been to renew it. It was very clearly
manifested in the ceremonies. For what could be more vain or frivolous
than for men to offer the fetid stench arising from the fat of cattle, in
order to reconcile themselves to God? or to resort to any aspersion of
water or of blood, to cleanse themselves from pollution? In short, the
whole legal worship, if it be considered in itself, and contain no shadows
and figures of correspondent truths, will appear perfectly ridiculous.
Wherefore it is not without reason, that both in the speech of Stephen and
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that passage is so carefully stated, in
which God commands Moses to make all things pertaining to the tabernacle
“according to the pattern showed to him in the mount.”(775) For unless
there had been some spiritual design, to which they were directed, the
Jews would have laboured to no purpose in these observances, as the
Gentiles did in their mummeries. Profane men, who have never seriously
devoted themselves to the pursuit of piety, have not patience to hear of
such various rites: they not only wonder why God should weary his ancient
people with such a mass of ceremonies, but they even despise and deride
them as puerile and ludicrous. This arises from inattention to the end of
the legal figures, from which if those figures be separated, they must be
condemned as vain and useless. But the “pattern,” which is mentioned,
shows that God commanded the sacrifices, not with a design to occupy his
worshippers in terrestrial exercises, but rather that he might elevate
their minds to sublimer objects. This may be likewise evinced by his
nature; for as he is a Spirit, he is pleased with none but spiritual
worship. Testimonies of this truth may be found in the numerous passages
of the Prophets, in which they reprove the stupidity of the Jews for
supposing that sacrifices possess any real value in the sight of God. Do
they mean to derogate from the law? Not at all; but being true
interpreters of it, they designed by this method to direct the eyes of the
people to that point from which the multitude were wandering. Now, from
the grace offered to the Jews, it is inferred as a certain truth, that the
law was not irrespective of Christ; for Moses mentioned to them this end
of their adoption, that they might “be unto God a kingdom of
priests;”(776) which could not be attained without a greater and more
excellent reconciliation than could arise from the blood of beasts. For
what is more improbable than that the sons of Adam, who by hereditary
contagion are all born the slaves of sin, should be exalted to regal
dignity, and thus become partakers of the glory of God, unless such an
eminent blessing proceeded from some other source than themselves? How
also could the right of the priesthood remain among them, the pollution of
whose crimes rendered them abominable to God, unless they had been
consecrated in a holy head? Wherefore Peter makes a beautiful application
of this observation of Moses, suggesting that the plenitude of that grace,
of which the Jews enjoyed a taste under the law, is exhibited in Christ.
“Ye are,” says he, “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood.”(777) This
application of the words tends to show, that they, to whom Christ has
appeared under the gospel, have obtained more than their forefathers;
because they are all invested with sacerdotal and regal honours, that in a
dependence on their Mediator they may venture to come boldly into the
presence of God.

II. And here it must be remarked, by the way, that the kingdom, which at
length was erected in the family of David, is a part of the law, and
comprised under the ministry of Moses; whence it follows, that both in the
posterity of David, and in the whole Levitical tribe, as in a twofold
mirror, Christ was exhibited to the view of his ancient people. For, as I
have just observed, it was otherwise impossible that in the Divine view
they should be kings and priests, who were the slaves of sin and death,
and polluted by their own corruptions. Hence appears the truth of the
assertion of Paul, that the Jews were subject, as it were, to the
authority of a schoolmaster, till the advent of that seed, for whose sake
the promise was given.(778) For Christ being not yet familiarly
discovered, they were like children, whose imbecility could not yet bear
the full knowledge of heavenly things. But how they were led to Christ by
the ceremonies, has been already stated, and may be better learned from
the testimonies of the Prophets. For although they were obliged every day
to approach God with new sacrifices, in order to appease him, yet Isaiah
promises them the expiation of all their transgressions by a single
sacrifice,(779) which is confirmed by Daniel.(780) The priests chosen from
the tribe of Levi, used to enter into the sanctuary; but concerning that
one priest it was once said, that he was divinely chosen with an oath, to
be “a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”(781) There was,
then, an unction of visible oil; but Daniel, from his vision, foretells an
unction of a different kind. But not to insist on many proofs, the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the fourth chapter to the eleventh,
demonstrates in a manner sufficiently copious and clear, that,
irrespective of Christ, all the ceremonies of the law are worthless and
vain. And in regard to the decalogue, we should attend to the declaration
of Paul, that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth;”(782) and also that Christ is “the Spirit,” who gives
“life” to the otherwise dead letter.(783) For in the former passage he
signifies that righteousness is taught in vain by the precepts, till
Christ bestows it both by a gratuitous imputation, and by the Spirit of
regeneration. Wherefore he justly denominates Christ the completion or end
of the law; for we should derive no benefit from a knowledge of what God
requires of us, unless we were succoured by Christ when labouring and
oppressed under its yoke and intolerable burden. In another place, he
states that “the law was added because of transgressions;”(784) that is,
to humble men, by convicting them of being the causes of their own
condemnation. Now, this being the true and only preparation for seeking
Christ, the various declarations which he makes are in perfect unison with
each other. But as he was then engaged in a controversy with erroneous
teachers, who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the
law,—in order to refute their error, he was sometimes obliged to use the
term _law_ in a more restricted sense, as merely preceptive, although it
was otherwise connected with the covenant of gratuitous adoption.

III. But it is worthy of a little inquiry, how we are rendered more
inexcusable by the instructions of the moral law, in order that a sense of
our guilt may excite us to supplicate for pardon. If it be true that the
law displays a perfection of righteousness, it also follows that the
complete observation of it, is in the sight of God a perfect
righteousness, in which a man would be esteemed and reputed righteous at
the tribunal of heaven. Wherefore Moses, when he had promulgated the law,
hesitated not to “call heaven and earth to record”(785) that he had
proposed to the Israelites life and death, good and evil. Nor can we deny
that the reward of eternal life awaits a righteous obedience to the law,
according to the Divine promise. But, on the other hand, it is proper to
examine whether we perform that obedience, the merit of which can warrant
our confident expectation of that reward. For how unimportant is it, to
discover that the reward of eternal life depends on the observance of the
law, unless we also ascertain whether it be possible for us to arrive at
eternal life in that way! But in this point the weakness of the law is
manifest. For as none of us are found to observe the law, we are excluded
from the promises of life, and fall entirely under the curse. I am now
showing, not only what does happen, but what necessarily must happen. For
the doctrine of the law being far above human ability, man may view the
promises, indeed, from a distance, but cannot gather any fruit from them.
It only remains for him, from their goodness to form a truer estimate of
his own misery, while he reflects that all hope of salvation is cut off,
and that he is in imminent danger of death. On the other hand, we are
urged with terrible sanctions, which bind, not a few of us, but every
individual of mankind; they urge, I say, and pursue us with inexorable
rigour, so that in the law we see nothing but present death.

IV. Therefore, if we direct our views exclusively to the law, the effects
upon our minds will only be despondency, confusion, and despair, since it
condemns and curses us all, and keeps us far from that blessedness which
it proposes to them who observe it. Does the Lord, then, you will say, in
this case do nothing but mock us? For how little does it differ from
mockery, to exhibit a hope of felicity, to invite and exhort to it, to
declare that it is ready for our reception, whilst the way to it is closed
and inaccessible! I reply, although the promises of the law, being
conditional, depend on a perfect obedience to the law, which can nowhere
be found, yet they have not been given in vain. For when we have learned
that they will be vain and inefficacious to us, unless God embrace us with
his gratuitous goodness, without any regard to our works, and unless we
have also embraced by faith that goodness, as exhibited to us in the
gospel,—then these promises are not without their use, even with the
condition annexed to them. For then he gratuitously confers every thing
upon us, so that he adds this also to the number of his favours, that not
rejecting our imperfect obedience, but pardoning its deficiencies, he
gives us to enjoy the benefit of the legal promises, just as if we had
fulfilled the condition ourselves. But as we shall more fully discuss this
question when we treat of the justification of faith, we shall pursue it
no further at present.

V. Our assertion, respecting the impossibility of observing the law, must
be briefly explained and proved; for it is generally esteemed a very
absurd sentiment, so that Jerome has not scrupled to denounce it as
accursed. What was the opinion of Jerome, I regard not; let us inquire
what is truth. I shall not here enter into a long discussion of the
various species of possibility; I call that impossible which has never
happened yet, and which is prevented by the ordination and decree of God
from ever happening in future. If we inquire from the remotest period of
antiquity, I assert that there never has existed a saint, who, surrounded
with a body of death, could attain to such a degree of love, as to love
God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and,
moreover, that there never has been one, who was not the subject of some
inordinate desire. Who can deny this? I know, indeed, what sort of saints
the folly of superstition imagines to itself, such as almost excel even
the angels of heaven in purity; but such an imagination is repugnant both
to Scripture and to the dictates of experience. I assert also that no man,
who shall exist in future, will reach the standard of true perfection,
unless released from the burden of the body. This is established by clear
testimonies of Scripture: Solomon says, “There is not a just man upon
earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.”(786) David; “In thy sight shall
no man living be justified.”(787) Job in many passages affirms the same
thing;(788) but Paul most plainly of all, that “the flesh lusteth against
the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.”(789) Nor does he prove,
that “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” by any
other reason but because “it is written, Cursed is every one that
continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to
do them;”(790) evidently suggesting, and even taking it for granted, that
no one can continue in them. Now, whatever is predicted in the Scriptures,
must be considered as perpetual, and even as necessary. With a similar
fallacy Augustine used to be teased by the Pelagians, who maintained that
it is an injury to God, to say that he commands more than the faithful
through his grace are able to perform. To avoid their cavil, he admitted
that the Lord might, if he chose, exalt a mortal man to the purity of
angels; but that he neither had ever done it, nor would ever do it,
because he had declared otherwise in the Scriptures.(791) This I do not
deny; but I add that it is absurd to dispute concerning the power of God,
in opposition to his veracity; and that, therefore, it affords no room for
cavilling, when any one maintains that to be impossible, which the
Scriptures declare will never happen. But if the dispute be about the
term, the Lord, in reply to an inquiry of his disciples, “Who, then, can
be saved?” says, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are
possible.”(792) Augustine contends, with a very powerful argument, that in
this flesh we never render to God the legitimate love which we owe to him.
“Love,” says he, “is an effect of knowledge, so that no man can perfectly
love God, who has not first a complete knowledge of his goodness. During
our pilgrimage in this world, we see through an obscure medium; the
consequence of this, then, is, that our love is imperfect.” It ought,
therefore, to be admitted without controversy, that it is impossible in
this carnal state to fulfil the law, if we consider the impotence of our
nature, as will elsewhere be proved also from Paul.(793)

VI. But for the better elucidation of the subject, let us state, in a
compendious order, the office and use of what is called the moral law. It
is contained, as far as I understand it, in these three points. The first
is, that while it discovers the righteousness of God, that is, the only
righteousness which is acceptable to God, it warns every one of his own
unrighteousness, places it beyond all doubt, convicts, and condemns him.
For it is necessary that man, blinded and inebriated with self‐love,
should thus be driven into a knowledge of himself, and a confession of his
own imbecility and impurity. Since, unless his vanity be evidently
reproved, he is inflated with a foolish confidence in his strength, and
can never be brought to perceive its feebleness as long as he measures it
by the rule of his own fancy. But as soon as he begins to compare it to
the difficulty of the law, he finds his insolence and pride immediately
abate. For how great soever his preconceived opinion of it, he perceives
it immediately pant under so heavy a load, and then totter, and at length
fall. Thus, being instructed under the tuition of the law, he lays aside
that arrogance with which he was previously blinded. He must also be cured
of the other disease, of pride, with which, we have observed, he is
afflicted. As long as he is permitted to stand in his own judgment, he
substitutes hypocrisy instead of righteousness; contented with which, he
rises up with I know not what pretended righteousnesses, in opposition to
the grace of God. But when he is constrained to examine his life according
to the rules of the law, he no longer presumes on his counterfeit
righteousness, but perceives that he is at an infinite distance from
holiness; and also that he abounds with innumerable vices, from which he
before supposed himself to be pure. For the evils of concupiscence are
concealed in such deep and intricate recesses, as easily to elude the view
of man. And it is not without cause that the Apostle says, “I had not
known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;”(794) because,
unless it be stripped of its disguises, and brought to light by the law,
it destroys the miserable man in so secret a manner, that he does not
perceive its fatal dart.

VII. Thus the law is like a mirror, in which we behold, first, our
impotence; secondly, our iniquity, which proceeds from it; and lastly, the
consequence of both, our obnoxiousness to the curse; just as a mirror
represents to us the spots on our face. For when a man is destitute of
power to practise righteousness, he must necessarily fall into the habits
of sin. And sin is immediately followed by the curse. Therefore the
greater the transgression of which the law convicts us, the more severe is
the judgment with which it condemns us. This appears from the observation
of the Apostle, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.”(795) For he
there speaks only of the first office of the law, which is experienced in
sinners not yet regenerated. The same sentiment is conveyed in the
following passages: that “the law entered, that the offence might
abound;”(796) and that it is therefore “the ministration of death, which
worketh wrath and slayeth.”(797) For iniquity undoubtedly increases more
and more, in proportion to the clearness of that sense of sin which
strikes the conscience; because to transgression of the law, there is then
added contumacy against the lawgiver. It remains, therefore, that the law
arm the Divine wrath against the sinner; for of itself it can only accuse,
condemn, and destroy. And, as Augustine says, if we have not the Spirit of
grace, the law serves only to convict and slay us. But this assertion
neither reflects dishonour on the law, nor at all derogates from its
excellence. Certainly, if our will were wholly conformed to the law, and
disposed to obey it, the mere knowledge of it would evidently be
sufficient to salvation. But since our carnal and corrupt nature is in a
state of hostility against the spirituality of the Divine law, and not
amended by its discipline, it follows that the law, which was given for
salvation, if it could have found adequate attention, becomes an occasion
of sin and death. For since we are all convicted of having transgressed
it, the more clearly it displays the righteousness of God, so, on the
contrary, the more it detects our iniquity, and the more certainly it
confirms the reward of life and salvation reserved for the righteous, so
much the more certain it makes the perdition of the wicked. These
expressions, therefore, are so far from being dishonourable to the law,
that they serve more illustriously to recommend the Divine goodness. For
hence it really appears, that our iniquity and depravity prevent us from
enjoying that blessed life which is revealed to all men in the law. Hence
the grace of God, which succours us without the assistance of the law, is
rendered sweeter; and his mercy, which confers it on us, more amiable;
from which we learn that he is never wearied with repeating his blessings
and loading us with new favours.

VIII. But though the iniquity and condemnation of us all are confirmed by
the testimony of the law, this is not done (at least if we properly profit
by it) in order to make us sink into despair, and fall over the precipice
of despondency. It is true that the wicked are thus confounded by it, but
this is occasioned by the obstinacy of their hearts. With the children of
God, its instructions must terminate in a different manner. The Apostle
indeed declares that we are all condemned by the sentence of the law,
“that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty
before God.”(798) Yet the same Apostle elsewhere informs us, that “God
hath concluded them all in unbelief,” not that he might destroy or suffer
all to perish, but “that he might have mercy upon all;”(799) that is, that
leaving their foolish opinion of their own strength, they may know that
they stand and are supported only by the power of God; that being naked
and destitute, they may resort for assistance to his mercy, recline
themselves wholly upon it, hide themselves entirely in it, and embrace it
alone for righteousness and merits, since it is offered in Christ to all
who with true faith implore it and expect it. For in the precepts of the
law, God appears only, on the one hand, as the rewarder of perfect
righteousness, of which we are all destitute; and on the other, as the
severe judge of transgressions. But in Christ, his face shines with a
plenitude of grace and lenity, even towards miserable and unworthy
sinners.

IX. Of making use of the law to implore the assistance of God, Augustine
frequently treats; as when he writes to Hilary: “The law gives commands,
in order that, endeavouring to perform them, and being wearied through our
infirmity under the law, we may learn to pray for the assistance of
grace.” Also to Asellius: “The utility of the law is to convince man of
his own infirmity, and to compel him to pray for the gracious remedy
provided in Christ.” Also to Innocentius Romanus: “The law commands: grace
furnishes strength for the performance.” Again, to Valentine: “God
commands what we cannot perform, that we may know for what blessings we
ought to supplicate him.” Again: “The law was given to convict you; that
being convicted you might fear, that fearing you might pray for pardon,
and not presume on your own strength.” Again: “The end for which the law
was given, was to diminish that which was great, to demonstrate that you
have of yourself no ability to work righteousness, that thus, being poor,
indigent, and destitute, you might have recourse to grace for relief.”
Afterwards he addresses himself to God: “Thus do, O Lord! thus do, O
merciful Lord! command that which cannot be performed: even command that
which cannot be performed without thy grace: that when men cannot perform
it in their own strength, every mouth may be stopped, and no man appear
great in his own estimation. Let all men be mean, and let all the world be
proved guilty before God.” But I am not wise in collecting so many
testimonies, when this holy man has written a treatise expressly on this
subject, which he has entitled _De Spiritu et Litera_, On the Spirit and
Letter. The second use of the law he does not so clearly describe, either
because he knew that it depends on the first, or because he did not so
fully understand it, or because he wanted words to explain it with
distinctness and perspicuity adequate to his ideas of it. Yet this first
office of the law is not confined to the pious, but extends also to the
reprobate. For though they do not, with the children of God, advance so
far as, after the mortification of the flesh, to be renewed, and to
flourish again in the inner man, but, confounded with the first horrors of
conscience, remain in despair, yet they contribute to manifest the equity
of the Divine judgment, by their consciences being agitated with such
violent emotions. For they are always desirous of cavilling against the
judgment of God; but now, while it is not yet manifested, they are,
nevertheless, so confounded with the testimony of the law and of their own
conscience, that they betray in themselves what they have deserved.

X. The second office of the law is, to cause those who, unless
constrained, feel no concern for justice and rectitude, when they hear its
terrible sanctions, to be at least restrained by a fear of its penalties.
And they are restrained, not because it internally influences or affects
their minds, but because, being chained, as it were, they refrain from
external acts, and repress their depravity within them, which otherwise
they would have wantonly discharged. This makes them neither better nor
more righteous in the Divine view. For although, being prevented either by
fear or by shame, they dare not execute what their minds have contrived,
nor openly discover the fury of their passions, yet their hearts are not
disposed to fear and obey God; and the more they restrain themselves, the
more violently they are inflamed within; they ferment, they boil, ready to
break out into any external acts, if they were not prevented by this dread
of the law. And not only so, they also inveterately hate the law itself,
and execrate God the lawgiver, so that, if they could, they would wish to
annihilate him whom they cannot bear, either in commanding that which is
right, or in punishing the despisers of his majesty. In some, indeed, this
state of mind is more evident, in others more concealed; but it is really
the case of all who are yet unregenerate, that they are induced to attend
to the law, not by a voluntary submission, but with reluctance and
resistance, only by the violence of fear. But yet this constrained and
extorted righteousness is necessary to the community, whose public
tranquillity is provided for by God in this instance, while he prevents
all things being involved in confusion, which would certainly be the case,
if all men were permitted to pursue their own inclinations. Moreover, it
is useful even to the children of God, to be exercised by its discipline
before their vocation, while they are destitute of the Spirit of
sanctification, and are absorbed in carnal folly. For when the dread of
Divine vengeance restrains them even from external licentiousness,
although, their minds being not yet subdued, they make but a slow progress
at present, yet they are in some measure accustomed to bear the yoke of
righteousness; so that when they are called, they may not be entirely
unaccustomed to its discipline, as a thing altogether unknown. To this
office of the law the Apostle appears particularly to have referred, when
he says, “that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
lawless and disobedient; for the ungodly and for sinners; for unholy and
profane; for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers; for
manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with
mankind, for men‐stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there
be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”(800) For he here
signifies that it restrains the violence of the carnal desires, which
would otherwise indulge themselves in the most unbounded licentiousness.

XI. But we may apply to both what he elsewhere asserts, that to the Jews
“the law was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ;”(801) for there are
two kinds of persons who are led to Christ by its discipline. Some, whom
we mentioned in the first place, from too much confidence either in their
own strength or in their own righteousness, are unfit to receive the grace
of Christ, till they have first been stripped of every thing. The law,
therefore, reduces them to humility by a knowledge of their own misery,
that thus they may be prepared to pray for that of which they before
supposed themselves not destitute. Others need a bridle to restrain them,
lest they abandon themselves to carnal licentiousness, to such a degree as
wholly to depart from all practice of righteousness. For where the Spirit
does not yet reign, there is sometimes such a violent ebullition of the
passions, as to occasion great danger of the soul that is under their
influence being swallowed up in forgetfulness and contempt of God; which
would certainly be the case, if the Lord did not provide this remedy
against it. Those, therefore, whom he has destined to the inheritance of
his kingdom, if he do not immediately regenerate them, he keeps under fear
by the works of the law till the time of his visitation; not that chaste
and pure fear which ought to be felt by his children, but a fear which is,
nevertheless, useful to train them, according to their capacity, to true
piety. Of this we have so many proofs, that there is no need to adduce any
example. For all who have lived for a considerable time in ignorance of
God will confess it to have been their experience, that they were
constrained by the law to a certain kind of fear and reverence of God,
till, being regenerated by his Spirit, they began to love him from their
hearts.

XII. The third use of the law, which is the principal one, and which is
more nearly connected with the proper end of it, relates to the faithful,
in whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns. For although
the law is inscribed and engraven on their hearts by the finger of
God,—that is, although they are so excited and animated by the direction
of the Spirit, that they desire to obey God,—yet they derive a twofold
advantage from the law. For they find it an excellent instrument to give
them, from day to day, a better and more certain understanding of the
Divine will to which they aspire, and to confirm them in the knowledge of
it. As, though a servant be already influenced by the strongest desire of
gaining the approbation of his master, yet it is necessary for him
carefully to inquire and observe the orders of his master, in order to
conform to them. Nor let any one of us exempt himself from this necessity;
for no man has already acquired so much wisdom, that he could not by the
daily instruction of the law make new advances into a purer knowledge of
the Divine will. In the next place, as we need not only instruction, but
also exhortation, the servant of God will derive this further advantage
from the law; by frequent meditation on it he will be excited to
obedience, he will be confirmed in it, and restrained from the slippery
path of transgression. For in this manner should the saints stimulate
themselves, because, with whatever alacrity they labour for the
righteousness of God according to the Spirit, yet they are always burdened
with the indolence of the flesh, which prevents their proceeding with due
promptitude. To this flesh the law serves as a whip, urging it, like a
dull and tardy animal, forwards to its work; and even to the spiritual
man, who is not yet delivered from the burden of the flesh, it will be a
perpetual spur, that will not permit him to loiter. To this use of the law
David referred, when he celebrated it in such remarkable encomiums as
these: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the statutes
of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is
pure, enlightening the eyes,” &c.(802) Again: “Thy word is a lamp unto my
feet, and a light unto my path;”(803) and many others, which he introduces
in every part of this psalm. Nor are these assertions repugnant to those
of Paul, in which he shows, not what service the law renders to the
regenerate, but what it can bestow upon man merely of itself; whereas the
Psalmist in these passages celebrates the great advantage derived, through
the Divine teaching, from the reading of the law, by those whom God
inspires with an inward promptitude to obedience. And he adverts not only
to the precepts, but to the promise of grace annexed to their performance,
which alone causes that which is bitter to become sweet. For what would be
less amiable than the law, if by demands and threats it only distressed
the mind with fear, and harassed it with terror? But David particularly
shows, that in the law he discovered the Mediator, without whom there is
nothing pleasant or delightful.

XIII. Some unskilful men, being unable to discern this distinction, rashly
explode Moses altogether, and discard the two tables of the law; because
they consider it improper for Christians to adhere to a doctrine which
contains the administration of death. Far from us be this profane opinion;
for Moses has abundantly taught us, that the law, which in sinners can
only produce death, ought to have a better and more excellent use in the
saints. For just before his death he thus addressed the people: “Set your
hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye
shall command your children to observe, to do all the words of this law.
For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life.”(804) But if
no one can deny that the law exhibits a perfect model of righteousness,
either we ought to have no rule for an upright and just life, or it is
criminal for us to deviate from it. For there are not many rules of life,
but one, which is perpetually and immutably the same. Wherefore, when
David represents the life of a righteous man as spent in continual
meditations on the law,(805) we must not refer it to one period of time
only, because it is very suitable for all ages, even to the end of the
world. Let us neither be deterred, therefore, nor fly from its
instructions, because it prescribes a holiness far more complete than we
shall attain, as long as we remain in the prison of the body. For it no
longer exercises towards us the part of a rigorous exactor, only to be
satisfied by the perfect performance of every injunction; but in this
perfection, to which it exhorts us, it shows us a goal, to aim at which,
during the whole of our lives, would be equally conducive to our interest
and consistent with our duty; in which attempt it is happy for us if we
fail not. For the whole of this life is a course, which when we have
completed, the Lord will grant us to reach that goal, towards which at so
great a distance our efforts are now vigorously directed.

XIV. Now, because the law, in regard to the faithful, has the force of an
exhortation, not to bind their consciences with a curse, but by its
frequent admonitions to arouse their indolence, and reprove their
imperfection,—many persons, when they design to express this liberation
from its curse, say that the law (I still speak of the moral law) is
abrogated to the faithful; not that it no longer enjoins upon them that
which is right, but only that it ceases to be to them what it was before,
no longer terrifying and confounding their consciences, condemning and
destroying them. And such an abrogation of the law is clearly taught by
Paul. It appears also to have been preached by our Lord, since he would
not have refuted the opinion concerning his abolishing the law, unless it
had prevailed among the Jews. Now, as this opinion could not prevail
without any pretext, it is probable that it proceeded from a false
interpretation of his doctrine; in the same manner as almost all errors
have usually taken some colour from the truth. But lest we ourselves fall
into the same error, let us accurately distinguish what is abrogated in
the law, and what still remains in force. When the Lord declares that he
came “not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,” and that “till heaven and
earth shall pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled,”(806) he sufficiently proves that his advent
would detract nothing from the observance of the law. And with sufficient
reason, since the express end of his advent was to heal the transgressions
of it. The doctrine of the law remains, therefore, through Christ,
inviolable; which by tuition, admonition, reproof, and correction, forms
and prepares us for every good work.

XV. The assertions of Paul respecting the abrogation of the law evidently
relate, not to the instruction itself, but to the power of binding the
conscience. For the law not only teaches, but authoritatively requires,
obedience to its commands. If this obedience be not yielded, and even if
there be any partial deficiency of duty, it hurls the thunderbolt of its
curse. For this reason the Apostle says, that “as many as are of the works
of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things.”(807) Now, he affirms those to be “of
the works of the law,” who place not their righteousness in the remission
of sins, by which we are released from the rigour of the law. He teaches
us, therefore, that we must be released from the bondage of the law,
unless we would perish in misery under it. But what bondage? the bondage
of that austere and rigid exaction, which remits nothing from its
strictest requirements, and permits no transgression to pass with
impunity; I say, Christ, in order to redeem us from this curse, was “made
a curse for us. For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree.”(808) In the following chapter, indeed, he tells us, that Christ was
“made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law;” but in the
same sense; for he immediately adds, “that we might receive the adoption
of sons.”(809) What is this? that we might not be oppressed with a
perpetual servitude, which would keep our consciences in continual
distress with the dread of death. At the same time this truth remains for
ever unshaken, that the law has sustained no diminution of its authority,
but ought always to receive from us the same veneration and obedience.

XVI. The case of ceremonies, which have been abrogated, not as to their
effect, but only as to their use, is very different. Their having been
abolished by the advent of Christ, is so far from derogating from their
sanctity, that it rather recommends and renders it more illustrious. For
as they must have exhibited to the people, in ancient times, a vain
spectacle, unless they had discovered the virtue of the death and
resurrection of Christ, so, if they had not ceased, we should, in the
present age, have been unable to discern for what purpose they were
instituted. To prove, therefore, that the observance of them is not only
needless, but even injurious, Paul teaches us that they were shadows, the
body of which we have in Christ.(810) We see, then, that the truth shines
with greater splendour in their abolition, than if they still continued to
give a distant and obscure representation of Christ, who has openly
appeared. For this reason, at the death of Christ, “the veil of the temple
was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;”(811) because, according to
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the living and express image of
the heavenly blessings, which before had been only sketched in obscure
lineaments, was now clearly revealed. The same truth is conveyed in the
declaration of Christ, that “the law and the prophets were until John;
since that time the kingdom of God is preached.”(812) Not that the holy
fathers had been destitute of that preaching which contains the hope of
salvation, and of eternal life, but because they saw only at a distance,
and under shadows, what we now contemplate in open day. But the reason,
why it was necessary for the Church of God to ascend from those rudiments
to sublimer heights, is explained by John the Baptist: “the law was given
by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”(813) For although
expiation of sin was truly promised in the ancient sacrifices, and the ark
of the covenant was a certain pledge of the paternal favour of God, all
these would have been mere shadows, if they had not been founded in the
grace of Christ, where alone we may find true and eternal stability. Let
us firmly maintain, then, that though the legal rites have ceased to be
observed, yet their very discontinuance gives us a better knowledge of
their great utility before the advent of Christ, who, abolishing the
observance of them, confirmed their virtue and efficacy in his death.

XVII. The reasoning of Paul is attended with more difficulty: “And you,
being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he
quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting
out the hand‐writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary
to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross,” &c.(814) For
it seems to extend the abolition of the law somewhat further, as though we
had now no concern with its “ordinances.” For they are in an error who
understand it simply of the moral law, the abolition of which they,
nevertheless, explain to relate to its inexorable severity, rather than to
its precepts. Others, more acutely and carefully considering the words of
Paul, perceive that they belong particularly to the ceremonial law; and
prove that the word “ordinances” is more than once used by Paul in that
signification. For he thus expresses himself to the Ephesians: “He is our
peace, who hath made both one; having abolished the law of commandments
contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new
man.”(815) That he there speaks of the ceremonies, is very evident; for he
calls the law “the middle wall of partition,” by which the Jews were
separated from the Gentiles. Wherefore I allow that the former
commentators are justly censured by these; but even these do not appear to
me clearly to explain the meaning of the Apostle. For to compare these two
passages as in all respects similar, is what I by no means approve. When
he designs to assure the Ephesians of their admission into fellowship with
the Israelites, he informs them, that the impediment which formerly
prevented it is now removed. That consisted in ceremonies. For the rites
of ablutions and sacrifices, by which the Jews were consecrated to the
Lord, caused a separation between them and the Gentiles. But in the
Epistle to the Colossians he treats of a sublimer mystery. The controversy
there relates to the Mosaic observances, to which the false Apostles were
strenuously attempting to subject the Christians. But as in the Epistle to
the Galatians he goes to the depth of that controversy, and reduces it to
its source, so also in this place. For if in the rites you contemplate
nothing but the necessity of performing them, to what purpose were they
called a “hand‐writing that was against us”? and almost the whole of our
redemption made to consist in its being “blotted out?” Wherefore it is
evident, that here is something to be considered beside the external
ceremonies. And I am persuaded that I have discovered the genuine meaning,
at least if that be conceded to me as a truth, which Augustine somewhere
very truly asserts, and which he has even borrowed from the positive
expressions of an Apostle,(816) that in the Jewish ceremonies there was
rather a confession of sins than an expiation of them. For what did they
do in offering sacrifices, but confess themselves worthy of death, since
they substituted victims to be slain in their stead? What were their
purifications, but confessions that they were themselves impure? Thus the
hand‐writing both of their sin and of their impurity was frequently
renewed by them; but that confession afforded no deliverance. For which
reason the Apostle says that the death of Christ effected “the redemption
of the transgressions that were under the first testament.”(817) The
Apostle, therefore, justly denominates the ceremonies “a hand‐writing
against those who observe them;” because by them they publicly attested
their condemnation and impurity. Nor does any objection arise from their
having been also partakers of the same grace with us. For this they
obtained in Christ, not in the ceremonies, which the Apostle there
distinguishes from Christ; for being practised at that time after the
introduction of the gospel, they obscured the glory of Christ. We find,
then, that the ceremonies, considered by themselves, are beautifully and
appositely called a “hand‐writing that was against” the salvation of men;
because they were solemn instruments testifying their guilt. When the
false Apostles wished to bring the Church back to the observance of them,
the Apostle deeply investigated their signification, and very justly
admonished the Colossians into what circumstances they would relapse, if
they should suffer themselves to be thus enslaved by them. For they would
at the same time be deprived of the benefit of Christ; since, by the
eternal expiation that he has once effected, he has abolished those daily
observances, which could only attest their sins, but could never cancel
them.

Chapter VIII. An Exposition Of The Moral Law

Here I think it will not be foreign to our subject to introduce the ten
precepts of the law, with a brief exposition of them. For this will more
clearly evince what I have suggested, that the service which God has once
prescribed always remains in full force; and will also furnish us with a
confirmation of the second remark, that the Jews not only learned from it
the nature of true piety, but when they saw their inability to observe it,
were led by the fear of its sentence, though not without reluctance, to
the Mediator. Now, in giving a summary of those things which are requisite
to the true knowledge of God, we have shown that we can form no
conceptions of his greatness, but his majesty immediately discovers itself
to us, to constrain us to worship him. In the knowledge of ourselves, we
have laid down this as a principal article, that being divested of all
opinion of our own strength, and confidence in our own righteousness, and,
on the other hand, discouraged and depressed by a consciousness of our
poverty, we should learn true humility and self‐dejection. The Lord
accomplishes both these things in his law, where, in the first place,
claiming to himself the legitimate authority to command, he calls us to
revere his Divinity, and prescribes the parts of which this reverence
consists; and in the next place, promulgating the rule of his
righteousness, (the rectitude of which, our nature, being depraved and
perverted, perpetually opposes; and from the perfection of which, our
ability, through its indolence and imbecility towards that which is good,
is at a great distance,) he convicts us both of impotence and of
unrighteousness. Moreover, the internal law, which has before been said to
be inscribed and as it were engraven on the hearts of all men, suggests to
us in some measure the same things which are to be learned from the two
tables. For our conscience does not permit us to sleep in perpetual
insensibility, but is an internal witness and monitor of the duties we owe
to God, shows us the difference between good and evil, and so accuses us
when we deviate from our duty. But man, involved as he is in a cloud of
errors, scarcely obtains from this law of nature the smallest idea of what
worship is accepted by God; but is certainly at an immense distance from a
right understanding of it. Besides, he is so elated with arrogance and
ambition, and so blinded with self‐love, that he cannot yet take a view of
himself, and as it were retire within, that he may learn to submit and
humble himself, and to confess his misery. Since it was necessary,
therefore, both for our dulness and obstinacy, the Lord gave us a written
law; to declare with greater certainty what in the law of nature was too
obscure, and by arousing our indolence, to make a deeper impression on our
understanding and memory.

II. Now, it is easy to perceive, what we are to learn from the law;
namely, that God, as he is our Creator, justly sustains towards us the
character of a Father and of a Lord; and that on this account we owe to
him glory and reverence, love and fear. Moreover, that we are not at
liberty to follow every thing to which the violence of our passions may
incite us; but that we ought to be attentive to his will, and to practise
nothing but what is pleasing to him. In the next place, that righteousness
and rectitude are a delight, but iniquity an abomination to him; and that,
therefore, unless we will with impious ingratitude rebel against our
Maker, we must necessarily spend our whole lives in the practice of
righteousness. For if we manifest a becoming reverence for him, only when
we prefer his will to our own, it follows that there is no other
legitimate worship of him, but the observance of righteousness, sanctity,
and purity. Nor can we pretend to excuse ourselves by a want of ability,
like insolvent debtors. For it is improper for us to measure the glory of
God by our ability; for whatever may be our characters, he ever remains
like himself, the friend of righteousness, the enemy of iniquity. Whatever
he requires of us, since he can require nothing but what is right, we are
under a natural obligation to obey; but our inability is our own fault.
For if we are bound by our own passions, which are under the government of
sin, so that we are not at liberty to obey our Father, there is no reason
why we should plead this necessity in our defence, the criminality of
which is within ourselves, and must be imputed to us.

III. When we have made such a proficiency as this by means of the
instruction of the law, we ought, under the same teacher, to retire within
ourselves; from which we may learn two things: First, by comparing our
life with the righteousness of the law, we shall find, that we are very
far from acting agreeably to the will of God, and are therefore unworthy
to retain a place among his creatures, much less to be numbered among his
children. Secondly, by examining our strength, we shall see, that it is
not only unequal to the observance of the law, but a mere nullity. The
necessary consequence of this will be a diffidence in our own strength,
and an anxiety and trepidation of mind. For the conscience cannot sustain
the load of iniquity, without an immediate discovery of the Divine
judgment. And the Divine judgment cannot be perceived, without inspiring a
dread of death. Compelled also by proofs of its impotence, it cannot avoid
falling into an absolute despair of its own strength. Both these
dispositions produce humility and dejection. The result of all this is,
that the man terrified with the apprehension of eternal death, which he
sees justly impending over him for his unrighteousness, betakes himself
entirely to the Divine mercy, as to the only port of salvation; and
perceiving his inability to fulfil the commands of the law, and feeling
nothing but despair in himself, he implores and expects assistance from
another quarter.

IV. But not contented with having conciliated a reverence for his
righteousness, the Lord has also subjoined promises and threatenings, in
order that our hearts might imbibe a love for him, and at the same time a
hatred to iniquity. For since the eyes of our mind are too dim to be
attracted with the mere beauty of virtue, our most merciful Father has
been graciously pleased to allure us to the love and worship of himself by
the sweetness of his rewards. He announces, therefore, that he has
reserved rewards for virtue, and that the person who obeys his
commandments shall not labour in vain. He proclaims, on the contrary, not
only that unrighteousness is execrable in his sight, but also that it
shall not escape with impunity; but that he will avenge himself on all the
despisers of his majesty. And to urge us by all possible motives, he
promises also the blessings of the present life, as well as eternal
felicity, to the obedience of those who keep his commandments, the
transgressors of which he threatens not only with present calamities, but
with the torments of eternal death. For that promise, “these if a man do,
he shall live in them,”(818) and this correspondent threatening, “the soul
that sinneth, it shall die,”(819) undoubtedly relate to a future and
endless immortality or death. Wherever we read of the Divine benevolence
or wrath, the former comprehends eternal life, the latter eternal
destruction. Now, of present blessings and curses, the law contains a long
catalogue. The penal sanctions display the consummate purity of God, which
cannot tolerate iniquity; while the promises not only manifest his perfect
love of righteousness, which he cannot defraud of its reward, but likewise
illustrate his wonderful goodness. For since we, with all that belongs to
us, are indebted to his majesty, whatever he requires of us, he most
justly demands as the payment of a debt; but the payment of a debt is not
entitled to remuneration. Therefore he recedes from the strictness of his
claims, when he proposes a reward to our obedience, which is not performed
spontaneously, as if it were not a duty. But the effect of those promises
on us has partly been mentioned already, and will hereafter more clearly
appear in its proper place. Suffice it at present, if we remember and
consider that the promises of the law contain no mean recommendation of
righteousness, to make it more evident how much God is pleased with the
observance of it; and that the penal sanctions are annexed, to render
unrighteousness more execrable, lest the sinner, amidst the fascinations
of sin, should forget that the judgment of the Legislator awaits him.

V. Now, since the Lord, when about to deliver a rule of perfect
righteousness, referred all the parts of it to his own will, this shows
that nothing is more acceptable to him than obedience. This is worthy of
the most diligent observation, since the licentiousness of the human mind
is so inclined to the frequent invention of various services in order to
merit his favour. For this irreligious affectation of religion, which is a
principle innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in all ages, and
betrays itself even in the present day; for men always take a pleasure in
contriving some way of attaining righteousness, which is not agreeable to
the Divine word. Hence, among those which are commonly esteemed good
works, the precepts of the law hold a very contracted station, the
numberless multitude of human inventions occupying almost the whole space.
But what was the design of Moses, unless it was to repress such an
unwarrantable license, when, after the promulgation of the law, he
addressed the people in the following manner! “Observe and hear all these
words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy
children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right
in the sight of the Lord thy God. What thing soever I command you, observe
to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”(820) And
before, when he had declared that this was their wisdom and their
understanding in the sight of other nations, that they had received
statutes, and judgments, and ceremonies, from the Lord, he had added,
“Take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the
things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all
the days of thy life.”(821) Foreseeing that the Israelites would not rest,
but, even after the reception of the law, would labour to produce new
species of righteousness, foreign from what the law requires, unless they
should be rigorously restrained, God pronounces that his word comprehends
the perfection of righteousness; and yet, though this ought most
effectually to have prevented them, they were guilty of that very
presumption which was so expressly forbidden. But what is this to us? We
are certainly bound by the same declaration; for the claims of the Lord on
behalf of his law, that it contains the doctrine of perfect righteousness,
beyond all doubt remain perpetually the same; yet not contented with it,
we are wonderfully laborious in inventing and performing other good works,
one after another. The best remedy for this fault will be a constant
attention to this reflection; that the law was given to us from heaven to
teach us a perfect righteousness; that in it no righteousness is taught,
but that which is conformable to the decrees of the Divine will; that it
is therefore vain to attempt new species of works in order to merit the
favour of God, whose legitimate worship consists solely in obedience, but
that any pursuit of good works deviating from the law of God is an
intolerable profanation of the Divine and real righteousness. There is
much truth also in the observation of Augustine, who calls obedience to
God sometimes the parent and guardian, and sometimes the origin of all
virtues.

VI. But when we have given an exposition of the Divine law, we shall then
more suitably and profitably confirm what has been already advanced
concerning its office and use. Before we enter, however, on the discussion
of each article separately, it will be useful to premise some things which
may contribute to a general knowledge of it. First, let it be understood,
that the law inculcates a conformity of life, not only to external
probity, but also to internal and spiritual righteousness. Now, though
none can deny this, yet very few persons pay proper attention to it. This
arises from their not considering the Legislator, by whose nature we ought
to estimate also the nature of the law. If a king prohibit, by an edict,
adultery, murder, or theft, no man, I confess, will be liable to the
penalty of such a law, who has only conceived in his mind a desire to
commit adultery, murder, or theft, but has not perpetrated any of them.
Because the superintendence of a mortal legislator extends only to the
external conduct, and his prohibitions are not violated unless the crimes
be actually committed. But God, whose eye nothing escapes, and who esteems
not so much the external appearance as the purity of the heart, in the
prohibition of adultery, murder, and theft, comprises a prohibition of
lust, wrath, hatred, coveting what belongs to another, fraud, and every
similar vice. For, being a spiritual Legislator, he addresses himself to
the soul as much as to the body. Now, the murder of the soul is wrath and
hatred; the theft of the soul is evil concupiscence and avarice; the
adultery of the soul is lust. But it will be said, that human laws also
relate to designs and intentions, and not to fortuitous events. This I
grant; but they relate to such designs and intentions as have been
manifested in outward actions. They examine and consider with what
intention every act has been performed; but do not scrutinize the secret
thoughts. Human laws therefore are satisfied, when a man abstains from
external transgression. But, on the contrary, the Divine law being given
to our minds, the proper regulation of them is the principal requisite to
a righteous observance of it. But men in general, even while they
resolutely dissemble their contempt of the law, dispose their eyes, their
feet, their hands, and all the parts of their body, to some kind of
observance of it, while at the same time their hearts are entirely
alienated from all obedience to it, and they suppose that they have
discharged their duty, if they have concealed from man what they practise
in the sight of God. They hear the commands, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal. They draw not the sword
to commit murder; they never associate with harlots; they lay no violent
hands on the property of others. All these things thus far are well; but
in their whole souls they breathe after murders, they kindle into lust,
they look with dishonest eyes on the property of others, and in their
cupidity they devour it. Now, then, they are destitute of the principal
requisite of the law. Whence arises such gross stupidity, but from
discarding the Legislator, and accommodating a righteousness to their own
inclination? These persons Paul strongly opposes, when he affirms that
“the law is spiritual;”(822) signifying that it requires not only the
obedience of the soul, the understanding, and the will, but even an
angelic purity, which, being cleansed from all the pollution of the flesh,
may savour entirely of the Spirit.

VII. When we say that this is the sense of the law, we are not introducing
a novel interpretation of our own, but following Christ, who is the best
interpreter of it. For the people having imbibed from the Pharisees the
corrupt opinion, that he, who has perpetrated no external act of
disobedience to the law, is an observer of the law, he confutes this very
dangerous error, and pronounces an unchaste look at a woman to be
adultery; he declares them to be murderers, who hate a brother; he makes
them “in danger of the judgment,” who have only conceived resentment in
their hearts; them “in danger of the council,” who in murmuring or
quarrelling have discovered any sign of an angry mind; and them “in danger
of hell fire,” who with opprobrious and slanderous language have broken
forth into open rage.(823) Persons who have not perceived these things,
have pretended that Christ was another Moses, the giver of an evangelical
law, which supplied the deficiencies of the law of Moses. Whence that
common maxim, concerning the perfection of the evangelical law, that it is
far superior to the old law—a maxim in many respects very pernicious. For
when we introduce a summary of the commandments, it will appear from Moses
himself what an indignity this fixes on the Divine law. It certainly
insinuates that all the sanctity of the fathers under the Old Testament,
was not very remote from hypocrisy, and draws us aside from that one
perpetual rule of righteousness. But there is not the least difficulty in
the confutation of this error; for they have supposed that Christ made
additions to the law, whereas he only restored it to its genuine purity,
by clearing it from the obscurities and blemishes which it had contracted
from the falsehoods and the leaven of the Pharisees.

VIII. It must be observed, in the second place, that the commands and
prohibitions always imply more than the words express; but this must be so
restricted, that we may not make it a Lesbian rule, by the assistance of
which the Scripture may be licentiously perverted, and any sense be
extorted at pleasure from any passage. For some people, by this immoderate
and excursive liberty, cause one person to despise the authority of the
law, and another to despair of understanding it. Therefore, if it be
possible, we must find some way that may lead us by a straight and steady
course to the will of God. We must inquire, I say, how far our
interpretation ought to exceed the limits of the expressions; that it may
evidently appear, not to be an appendix of human glosses annexed to the
Divine law, but a faithful explanation of the pure and genuine sense of
the legislator. Indeed, in all the commandments, the figure synecdoche, by
which a part is expressed instead of the whole, is so conspicuous, that he
may justly be the object of ridicule, who would restrict the sense of the
law within the narrow limits of the words. It is plain, then, that a sober
exposition of the law goes beyond the words of it; but how far, remains
doubtful, unless some rule be laid down. The best rule, then, I conceive
will be, that the exposition be directed to the design of the precept;
that in regard to every precept it should be considered for what end it
was given. For example, every precept is either imperative or prohibitory.
The true meaning of both these kinds of precepts will immediately occur to
us, if we consider the design or the end of them; as the end of the fifth
commandment is, that honour may be given to them to whom God assigns it.
The substance of this precept, then, is, that it is right, and pleasing to
God, that we should honour those on whom he has conferred any excellence,
and that contemptuous and contumacious conduct towards them is an
abomination to him. The design of the first commandment is, that God alone
may be worshipped. The substance of this precept, then, will be, that true
piety, that is, the worship of his majesty, is pleasing to God, and that
he abominates impiety. Thus in every commandment we should first examine
the subject of it; in the next place we should inquire the end of it, till
we discover what the Legislator really declares in it to be either
pleasing or displeasing to him. Lastly, we must draw an argument from this
commandment to the opposite of it, in this manner:—If this please God, the
contrary must displease him; if this displease him, the contrary must
please him; if he enjoin this, he forbids the contrary; if he forbid this,
he enjoins the contrary.

IX. What we now rather obscurely hint at, will be fully and practically
elucidated in our exposition of the commandments. Wherefore it is
sufficient to have suggested it; only the last position, which otherwise
might not be understood, or, if understood, might seem unreasonable,
requires to be briefly established by suitable proof. It needs no proof,
that an injunction of any thing good is a prohibition of the opposite
evil; for every man will concede it. And common sense will easily admit,
that a prohibition of crimes is a command to practise the contrary duties.
It is commonly considered as a commendation of virtues, when censure is
passed on the opposite vices. But we require somewhat more than is
commonly intended by those forms of expression. For men generally
understand the virtue which is opposite to any vice to be an abstinence
from that vice; but we affirm that it goes further, even to the actual
performance of the opposite duty. Therefore, in this precept, “Thou shalt
not kill,” the common sense of mankind will perceive nothing more than
that we ought to abstain from all acts of injury to others, and from all
desire to commit any such acts. I maintain that it also implies, that we
should do every thing that we possibly can towards the preservation of the
life of our neighbour. And not to speak without reason, I prove it in the
following manner: God forbids us to injure the safety of our brother,
because he wishes his life to be dear and precious to us: he therefore at
the same time requires of us all those offices of love which may
contribute to the preservation of it. Thus we perceive, that the end of
the precept will always discover to us whatever it enjoins or forbids us
to do.

X. Many reasons are frequently given, why God has, as it were, in
incomplete precepts, rather partially intimated his will than positively
expressed it; but the reason which affords me more satisfaction than all
others is the following. Because the flesh always endeavours to extenuate,
and by specious pretexts to conceal the turpitude of sin, unless it be
exceedingly palpable, he has proposed, by way of example, in every kind of
transgression, that which is most atrocious and detestable, and the
mention of which inspires us with horror, in order that our minds might be
impressed with the greater detestation of every sin. This often deceives
us in forming an opinion of vices; if they be private, we extenuate them.
The Lord destroys these subterfuges, when he accustoms us to refer the
whole multitude of vices to these general heads, which best represent the
abominable nature of every species of transgressions. For example, anger
and hatred are not supposed to be such execrable crimes when they are
mentioned under their own proper appellations; but when they are forbidden
to us under the name of murder, we have a clearer perception how
abominable they are in the view of God, by whose word they are classed
under such a flagitious and horrible species of crimes; and being
influenced by his judgment, we accustom ourselves more seriously to
consider the atrociousness of those offences which we previously accounted
trivial.

XI. In the third place, let it be considered, what is intended by the
division of the Divine law into two tables; the frequent and solemn
mention of which all wise men will judge not to be without some particular
design. And we have a reason at hand, which removes all ambiguity on this
subject. For God has divided his law into two parts, which comprise the
perfection of righteousness, so that he has assigned the first part to the
duties of religion, which peculiarly belongs to the worship of his
majesty, and the second to those duties of charity, which respect men. The
first foundation of righteousness is certainly the worship of God; and if
this be destroyed, all the other branches of righteousness, like the parts
of a disjointed and falling edifice, are torn asunder and scattered. For
what kind of righteousness will you pretend to, because you refrain from
harassing men by acts of theft and rapine, if at the same time you
atrociously and sacrilegiously defraud the majesty of God of the glory
which is due to him?—because you do not pollute your body with
fornication, if you blasphemously profane the sacred name of God?—because
you murder no man, if you strive to destroy and extinguish all memory of
God? It is in vain, therefore, to boast of righteousness without religion;
as well might the trunk of a body be exhibited as a beautiful object,
after the head has been cut off. Nor is religion only the head of
righteousness, but the very soul of it, constituting all its life and
vigour; for without the fear of God, men preserve no equity and love among
themselves. We therefore call the worship of God the principle and
foundation of righteousness, because, if that be wanting, whatever equity,
continence, and temperance men may practise among themselves, it is all
vain and frivolous in the sight of God. We assert also that it is the
source and soul of righteousness; because men are taught by it to live
temperately and justly with one another, if they venerate God as the judge
of right and wrong. In the first table, therefore, he instructs us in
piety and the proper duties of religion, in which his majesty is to be
worshipped; in the second he prescribes the duties which the fear of his
name should excite us to practise in society. For this reason our Lord, as
the evangelists inform us,(824) summarily comprised the whole law in two
principal points—that we love God with all our heart, with all our soul,
and with all our strength; and that we love our neighbour as ourselves. Of
the two parts in which he comprehends the whole law, we see how he directs
one towards God, and assigns the other to men.

XII. But, although the whole law is contained in these two principal
points, yet our God, in order to remove every pretext of excuse, has been
pleased in the ten commandments more diffusely and explicitly to declare,
as well those things which relate to our honour, love, and fear of him, as
those which pertain to that charity, which he commands us for his sake to
exercise towards men. Nor is it a useless study to examine into the
division of the commandments; provided you remember it is a subject of
such a nature, that every man ought to be at liberty to judge of it, and
that we ought not contentiously to oppose any who may differ from us
respecting it. But we are under a necessity of touching on this topic,
lest the reader should despise or wonder at the division that we shall
adopt, as a novel invention. That the law is divided into ten precepts, is
beyond all controversy, being frequently established by the authority of
God himself. The question, therefore, is not concerning the number of the
precepts, but concerning the manner of dividing them. Those who divide
them, so as to assign three precepts to the first table, and leave the
remaining seven to the second, expunge from the number the precept
concerning images, or at least conceal it under the first; whereas it is
undoubtedly delivered by the Lord as a distinct commandment. But the
tenth, against coveting the property of our neighbour, they improperly
divide into two. We shall see presently that such a method of division was
unknown in purer ages. Others reckon with us four articles in the first
table; but the first commandment they consider as a simple promise,
without a precept. Now, I understand the “ten words” mentioned by Moses to
be ten precepts; and I think I see that number disposed in the most
beautiful order. And therefore, unless I am convinced by clear argument,
leaving them in possession of their opinion, I shall follow what appears
to me to be preferable; that is, that what they make the first precept is
a preface to the whole law; that it is followed by the precepts, four
belonging to the first table and six to the second, in the order in which
they will now be recited. Origen has mentioned this division as if it were
universally received in his time without any controversy. Augustine also
coincides with us; for in enumerating them to Boniface, he observes this
order: That God alone be religiously worshipped; that no adoration be paid
to an idol; that the name of the Lord be not taken in vain. He had before
spoken separately of the shadowy precept of the sabbath. It is true, that
in another passage he expresses his approbation of the former division,
but for a most trivial reason; namely, that if the first table be digested
into three precepts, the trinal number will be a more conspicuous
exhibition of the mystery of the Trinity. In the same place, however, he
does not conceal that in other respects he prefers our division. Beside
these writers, the author of the unfinished treatise on Matthew is of the
same opinion with us. Josephus, doubtless according to the common opinion
of his time, assigns five precepts to each table. This is repugnant to
reason, because it confounds the distinction between religion and charity;
and is also refuted by the authority of our Lord, who in Matthew places
the precept concerning honour to parents in the second table. Now let us
hear God himself speaking in his own words.

The First Commandment.

_I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods
before me._

XIII. Whether you make the first sentence a part of the first commandment,
or read it separately, is a matter of indifference to me, provided you
allow it to be a preface to the whole law. The first object of attention
in making laws is to guard against their being abrogated by contempt.
Therefore God in the first place provides, that the majesty of the law,
which he is about to deliver, may never fall into contempt; and to
sanction it he uses a threefold argument. He asserts his authority and
right of giving commands, and thereby lays his chosen people under a
necessity of obeying them. He exhibits a promise of grace, to allure them
by its charms to the pursuit of holiness. He reminds the Israelites of his
favour, to convict them of ingratitude if they do not conduct themselves
in a manner correspondent to his goodness. The name LORD, or JEHOVAH,
designates his authority and legitimate dominion. For if all things be of
him, and if in him all things consist, it is reasonable that all things be
referred to him, agreeably to the observation of Paul.(825) Therefore by
this word alone we are brought into complete subjection to the power of
the Divine majesty; for it would be monstrous for us to desire to remove
ourselves from his jurisdiction, out of whom we cannot exist.

XIV. After having shown that he has a right to command, and that obedience
is his just due,—that he may not appear to constrain us by necessity
alone, he sweetly allures us by pronouncing himself the God of the Church.
For the expression implies the mutual relation which is contained in that
promise, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”(826) Whence
Christ proves the immortality of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the
declaration of the Lord, that he is their God.(827) Wherefore it is the
same as if he had said, I have chosen you as my people, not only to bless
you in the present life, but to bestow upon you abundant felicity in the
life to come. The design of this favour is remarked in various places in
the law; for when the Lord in mercy condescends to number us among the
society of his people, “He chooseth us,” says Moses, “to be a peculiar
people unto himself, a holy people, to keep his commandments.”(828) Hence
that exhortation, “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy.”(829) Now, from these
two considerations is derived the remonstrance of the Lord by the Prophet:
“A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a
father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my
fear?”(830)

XV. Next follows a recital of his kindness, which ought to produce a most
powerful effect upon our minds, in proportion to the detestable guilt of
ingratitude, even among men. He reminded the Israelites, indeed, of a
favour which they had recently experienced, but which, on account of its
magnitude and concomitant miracles, being worthy of everlasting
remembrance, might also have an influence on succeeding generations.
Besides, it was particularly suitable to the present occasion, when the
law was about to be published; for the Lord suggests that they were
liberated from a miserable slavery in order that they might serve the
author of their liberty with a promptitude of reverence and obedience. To
retain us in the true and exclusive worship of himself, he generally
distinguishes himself by certain epithets, by which he discriminates his
sacred name from all idols and fictitious deities. For, as I have before
observed, such is our proneness to vanity and presumption, that as soon as
God is mentioned, our mind is unable to guard itself from falling into
some vain imagination. Therefore, when God intends to apply a remedy to
this evil, he adorns his majesty with certain titles, and thus
circumscribes us with barriers, that we may not run into various follies,
and presumptuously invent to ourselves some new deity, discarding the
living God, and setting up an idol in his stead. For this reason the
Prophets, whenever they intend a proper designation of him, invest him,
and as it were surround him, with those characters under which he had
manifested himself to the people of Israel. Yet, when he is called “the
God of Abraham,” or “the God of Israel,” when he is said to reside
“between the cherubim,” “in the temple,” “at Jerusalem,”(831) these and
similar forms of expression do not confine him to one place, or to one
nation; they are only used to fix the thoughts of the pious on that God,
who, in the covenant which he has made with Israel, has given such a
representation of himself, that it is not proper to deviate in the
smallest instance from such a model. Nevertheless, let it be concluded,
that the deliverance of the Jews is mentioned to induce them to devote
themselves with more alacrity to the service of God, who justly claims a
right to their obedience. But, that we may not suppose this to have no
relation to us, it behoves us to consider, that the servitude of Israel in
Egypt was a type of the spiritual captivity, in which we are all detained,
till our celestial Deliverer extricates us by the power of his arm, and
introduces us into the kingdom of liberty. As formerly, therefore, when he
designed to restore the dispersed Israelites to the worship of his name,
he rescued them from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, by which they
were oppressed, so now he delivers all those, whose God he declares
himself to be, from the fatal dominion of Satan, which was represented by
that corporeal captivity. Wherefore there is no one, whose mind ought not
to be excited to listen to the law, which he is informed came from the
King of kings; from whom as all creatures derive their origin, so it is
reasonable that they should regard him as their end in all things. Every
man, I say, ought to welcome the Legislator; to observe whose commands he
is taught that he is particularly chosen; from whose benignity he expects
an abundance of temporal blessings, and a life of immortality and glory;
by whose wonderful power and mercy he knows himself to be delivered from
the jaws of death.

XVI. Having firmly established the authority of his law, he publishes the
first commandment, “That we should have no other gods before him.” The end
of this precept is, that God chooses to have the sole preëminence, and to
enjoy undiminished his authority among his people. To produce this end, he
enjoins us to keep at a distance from all impiety and superstition, by
which we should either diminish or obscure the glory of his Deity; and for
the same reason he directs us to worship and adore him in the exercise of
true piety. The simplicity of the language almost expresses this; for we
cannot “have” God without at the same time comprising all that belongs to
him. Therefore, when he forbids us to “have” any other gods, he implies,
that we must not transfer to another what belongs to him. But although the
duties we owe to God are innumerable, yet they may not improperly be
classed under four general heads—adoration, a necessary branch of which is
the spiritual obedience of the conscience; trust; invocation; and
thanksgiving. By adoration I mean the reverence and worship which he
receives from every one of us who has submitted to his majesty. Wherefore
it is not without reason that I make it partly to consist in a subjection
of our consciences to his law; [for it is a spiritual homage which is
rendered to him, as to a sovereign King possessed of all power over our
souls.] Trust is a secure dependence on him arising from a knowledge of
his perfections; when ascribing to him all wisdom, righteousness, power,
truth, and goodness, we esteem ourselves happy only in communications from
him. Invocation is the application of our minds, under every pressure of
necessity, resorting to his fidelity, faithfulness, and assistance, as its
only defence. Thanksgiving is gratitude, which ascribes to him the praise
of all blessings. As the Lord permits no portion of these duties to be
transferred to another, so he commands them to be wholly given to himself.
Nor will it be sufficient for you to refrain from worshipping any other
god, unless you also refrain from imitating certain nefarious despisers,
who take the compendious method of treating all religions with contempt.
But the observance of this precept must be preceded by true religion,
leading our minds to the living God; that being endued with the knowledge
of him, they may aspire to admire, fear, and worship his majesty, to
receive his communication of blessings, to request his aid upon all
occasions, to acknowledge and celebrate the magnificence of his works, as
the sole end in all the actions of our lives. We must also beware of
corrupt superstition, by which those whose minds are diverted from the
true God, are carried about after various deities. Therefore, if we be
contented with one God, let us remember what has before been observed,
that all fictitious deities must be driven far away, and that we must not
divide that worship which he claims exclusively to himself. For it is
criminal to detract even the smallest portion from his glory; he must be
left in possession of all that belongs to him. The following clause,
“before me,” aggravates the atrociousness of the offence; for God is
provoked to jealousy whenever we substitute the figments of our own minds
instead of him; just as an immodest woman, by openly introducing an
adulterer into the presence of her husband, would inflame his mind with
the greater resentment. When God, therefore, by the presence of his power
and grace, gave a proof of his regard to the people whom he had chosen,—in
order the more forcibly to deter them from the crime of rebellion against
him, he warns them of the impossibility of introducing new deities without
his being a witness and spectator of the sacrilege. For this presumption
rises to the highest degree of impiety, when man imagines that he can
elude the observation of God in his acts of rebellion. God, on the
contrary, proclaims, that whatever we devise, whatever we attempt,
whatever we perform, is present to his view. Our conscience must therefore
be pure even from the most latent thoughts of apostasy, if we wish our
religion to obtain the approbation of the Lord. For he requires from us
the glory due to his Divinity undiminished and uncorrupted, not only in
external confession, but in his own eyes, which penetrate the inmost
recesses of our hearts.

The Second Commandment.

_Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not
bow down thyself to them, nor serve them._

XVII. As in the preceding commandment the Lord has declared himself to be
the one God, besides whom no other deities ought to be imagined or
worshipped, so in this he more clearly reveals his nature, and the kind of
worship with which he ought to be honoured, that we may not dare to form
any carnal conceptions of him. The end, therefore, of this precept is,
that he will not have his legitimate worship profaned with superstitious
rites. Wherefore, in a word, he calls us off, and wholly abstracts us from
carnal observances, which our foolish minds are accustomed to devise, when
they conceive of God according to the grossness of their own
apprehensions; and therefore he calls us to the service which rightfully
belongs to him; that is, the spiritual worship which he has instituted. He
marks what is the grossest transgression of this kind; that is, external
idolatry. And this precept consists of two parts. The first restrains us
from licentiously daring to make God, who is incomprehensible, the subject
of our senses, or to represent him under any visible form. The second
prohibits us from paying religious adoration to any images. He likewise
briefly enumerates all the forms, in which he used to be represented by
profane and superstitious nations. By those things which are in heaven, he
means the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and perhaps birds; as, when
he explains his meaning in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, he mentions
birds as well as the stars.(832) This I should not have remarked, had I
not known some persons injudiciously refer this clause to angels. I omit
the other particulars, as needing no explanation. And in the first
book(833) we have already sufficiently proved that whatever visible
representations of God are invented by man, are diametrically opposite to
his nature; and that, therefore, as soon as ever idols are introduced,
true religion is immediately corrupted and adulterated.

XVIII. The penal sanction which is annexed ought to have no small
influence in arousing us from our lethargy. He thus threatens:

_For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them
that love me, and keep my commandments._

This is equivalent to a declaration that it is to him alone that we ought
to adhere. And to urge us to it, he announces his power, which he permits
none with impunity to despise or undervalue. For the Hebrew word _El_,
which is here used for God, is expressive of strength. In the second
place, he calls himself “a jealous God,” who can bear no rival. Thirdly,
he declares that he will avenge his majesty and glory on those who
transfer it to creatures or to graven images; and that not with the
transient punishment of the original transgressors only, but of their
posterity to the third and fourth generation; that is, of those who shall
imitate the impiety of their fathers; as he also permanently displays his
mercy and goodness, through a long line of posterity, to those who love
him and keep his law. It is very common for God to assume the character of
a husband to us; for the union, in which he connects us with himself, when
he receives us into the bosom of his Church, bears a resemblance to the
sacred conjugal relation, which requires to be supported by mutual
fidelity. As he performs towards us all the duties of a true and faithful
husband, so he demands from us the reciprocal duties of conjugal love and
chastity; that is, that we do not prostitute our souls to Satan, to lust,
and to the impurity of the carnal appetites. Wherefore, when he reproves
the apostasy of the Jews, he complains that they had discarded chastity,
and were polluted with adulteries.(834) Therefore, as a husband, in
proportion to the superiority of his purity and chastity, is the more
grievously incensed, if he perceive the affection of his wife inclining to
a rival, so the Lord, who has in truth espoused us to himself, declares
that he feels the most ardent jealousy, whenever we neglect the sacred
purity of his conjugal relation to us, and defile ourselves with criminal
lusts, but especially when we transfer to any other, or adulterate with
any superstition, the worship of his majesty, which ought to be preserved
in the most consummate perfection; since by such conduct we not only
violate the faith pledged in our nuptials, but even pollute our souls with
spiritual adultery.

XIX. Let us inquire what he intends by his threatening to “visit the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth
generation.” For besides that it is inconsistent with the equity of the
Divine justice to inflict upon an innocent person the punishment due to
the offences of another, God himself declares that “the son shall not bear
the iniquity of the father.”(835) But this expression is repeated more
than once, concerning a deferring to future generations of the punishments
of crimes committed by their ancestors. For Moses frequently speaks of
“the Lord visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generation.”(836) In like manner Jeremiah: “Thou showest
loving‐kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the
fathers into the bosom of their children after them.”(837) Some, who
labour very hard to solve this difficulty, are of opinion that its meaning
is to be confined to temporal punishments; which if children sustain
through the sins of their parents, there is nothing absurd in it; because
they frequently conduce to the salvation of those on whom they are
inflicted. This is certainly true. For Isaiah denounced to Hezekiah, that
on account of the sin which he had committed, his sons should be despoiled
of the kingdom and carried away into exile.(838) The families of Pharaoh
and Abimelech are afflicted on account of the injury sustained by
Abraham.(839) But when this is adduced as a solution of these questions,
it is rather an evasion of it, than a proper explanation. For in this and
in similar places the Lord threatens a punishment too great to be
terminated by the limits of the present life. It must therefore be
understood as a declaration that the curse of the Lord righteously rests,
not only on the person of an impious man, but also on his whole family.
Where it has rested, what can be expected, but that the father, being
destitute of the Spirit of God, will lead a most flagitious life; and that
the son, experiencing, in consequence of the iniquity of his father, a
similar dereliction by the Lord, will pursue the same path to perdition;
and that the grandson and the great grandson, the execrable posterity of
detestable men, will run headlong after them down the same precipice of
destruction?

XX. First let us inquire, whether such punishment be inconsistent with the
Divine justice. If the whole nature of man be worthy of condemnation, we
know that destruction awaits those who are not favoured by the Lord with
the communication of his grace. Nevertheless, they perish through their
own iniquity, and not through the unjust hatred of God. Nor is there any
room left for expostulation, why they are not assisted by Divine grace to
obtain salvation as well as others. Since it is a punishment, therefore,
inflicted on the impious and flagitious, in consequence of their
transgressions, that their families remain destitute of Divine grace for
many generations, who can bring any accusation against God for this most
righteous instance of his vengeance? But it will be said, the Lord
declares, on the contrary, that the punishment of the sin of the father
shall not be transferred to the son. Observe the subject that is treated
of in that place. The Israelites, after they had been long harassed by
numerous and unceasing calamities, began to use this proverb, “The fathers
have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge;”(840) by
which they insinuated, that sins had been committed by their parents, the
punishment of which was inflicted on them who were otherwise righteous and
innocent, more through the implacable wrath of God, than through a just
severity. The Prophet announces to them that this is not the case, but
that they are punished for their own transgressions, and that it is
incompatible with the Divine justice to punish a righteous son for the
iniquity of a wicked father. Nor is this to be found in the penal sanction
now under consideration. For if the visitation, of which we are treating,
be fulfilled, when God removes from the family of the impious his grace,
the light of his truth, and the other means of salvation, the very
circumstance of children blinded and abandoned by him being found treading
in the footsteps of their fathers, is an instance of their bearing the
curse in consequence of the crimes of their parents. But their being the
subjects of temporal miseries, and at length of eternal perdition, are
punishments from the righteous judgment of God, not for the sins of
others, but on account of their own iniquity.

XXI. On the other hand, God gives a promise to extend his mercy to a
thousand generations; which also frequently occurs in the Scripture, and
is inserted in the solemn covenant with the Church: “I will be a God unto
thee, and to thy seed after thee.”(841) In allusion to this, Solomon says,
that “the children of the just man are blessed after him;”(842) not only
as the effect of a religious education, which is of no small importance,
but also in consequence of the blessing promised in the covenant, that the
grace of God shall perpetually remain in the families of the pious. This
is a source of peculiar consolation to the faithful, but to the impious of
great terror; for if, even after death, the memory of righteousness and
iniquity has so much influence with God, that the curse of the one and the
blessing of the other will redound to posterity, much more will it remain
on the persons of the actors themselves. Now, it is no objection to our
argument, that the descendants of the impious sometimes grow better, while
those of the faithful degenerate; since the Legislator never intended to
establish in this case such an invariable rule, as would derogate from his
own free choice. For it is sufficient for the consolation of the righteous
and the terror of the sinner, that the denunciation is not vain or
inefficacious, although it be not always executed. For as the temporal
punishments inflicted on a few wicked men are testimonies of the Divine
wrath against sin, and of the judgment that will hereafter be pronounced
on all sinners, though many escape with impunity even to the end of their
lives, so, when the Lord exhibits one example of this blessing, in
manifesting his mercy and goodness to the son for the sake of his father,
he affords a proof of his constant and perpetual favour to his
worshippers; and when, in any one instance, he pursues the iniquity of the
father in the son, he shows what a judgment awaits all the reprobate on
account of their own transgressions; the certainty of which was what he
principally designed in this passage. He also gives us a cursory
intimation of the greatness of his mercy, which he extends to a thousand
generations, while he has assigned only four generations to his vengeance.

The Third Commandment.

_Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain._

XXII. The end of this precept is, that the Lord will have the majesty of
his name to be held inviolably sacred by us. The substance of the command
therefore is, that we ought not to profane that name by a contemptuous or
irreverent use of it. This prohibition necessarily implies an injunction,
that we studiously and carefully treat it with religious veneration.
Therefore it becomes us to regulate our thoughts and words in such a
manner that we may not think or speak any thing concerning God and his
mysteries, but with the greatest sobriety and reverence; that in
meditating on his works we may form no opinion that is dishonourable to
him. These three things, I say, we ought most carefully to observe—first,
that whatever we think, and whatever we say of him, should savour of his
excellence, correspond to the sacred sublimity of his name, and tend to
the exaltation of his magnificence. Secondly, we should not rashly and
preposterously abuse his holy word and adorable mysteries to the purposes
of ambition, of avarice, or of amusement; but as they bear an impression
of the dignity of his name, they should always receive from us the honour
and esteem which belong to them. Lastly, we should not injure his works by
obloquy or detraction, as some miserable mortals are accustomed to do; but
whenever we mention any thing done by him, we should celebrate it with
encomiums of wisdom, justice, and goodness. This is “sanctifying” the name
of God. In every other case, it is violated by a vain and criminal abuse,
because it is carried beyond the limits of that legitimate use, to which
alone it is consecrated; and though no other consequence ensue, it is
deprived of its dignity, and by degrees rendered contemptible. But if it
be so criminal thus rashly and unseasonably to introduce the name of God
on every occasion, much more so must it be to apply it to such nefarious
uses as they do, who make it subservient to the superstitions of
necromancy, to horrible imprecations, to unlawful exorcisms, and to other
impious incantations. But an oath is the thing principally contemplated in
the command, as the most detestable instance of the perverse abuse of the
Divine name; and this is done to inspire us with the greater horror of
every species of profanation of it. That this precept relates to the
worship of God and the reverence of his name, and not to the equity that
ought to be observed among mankind, appears from this—that the subsequent
condemnation, in the second table, of perjury and false witness, by which
society is injured, would be a needless repetition, if the present precept
related to a civil duty. Besides, the division of the law requires this;
for, as we have already observed, it is not in vain that God has
distributed the law into two tables. Whence we conclude, that in this
command he vindicates his just claims, and guards the sanctity of his
name, but does not teach the duties which men owe to each other.

XXIII. In the first place, we have to explain what an oath is. It consists
in calling upon God as a witness, to confirm the truth of any declaration
that we make. For execrations, which contain manifest reproaches against
God, are not worthy to be mentioned among oaths. That such an attestation,
when rightly performed, is a species of Divine worship, is evident from
many places of Scripture; as when Isaiah prophesies of the vocation of the
Assyrians and Egyptians to participate in the covenant with Israel. “They
shall speak,” says he, “the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of
hosts.”(843) By “swearing to the Lord” here is intended making a
profession of religion. Again, when he speaks of the extension of his
kingdom: “He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the
God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of
truth.”(844) Jeremiah says, “If they will diligently learn the ways of my
people, to swear by my name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to
swear by Baal, then shall they be built in the midst of my people.”(845)
And we are justly said to profess our religion to the Lord, when we invoke
his name to bear witness to us. For thereby we confess that he is truth
itself, eternal and immutable; whom we call not only as a witness of the
truth, excelling all others, but also as the only defender of it, who is
able to bring to light things which are concealed, and in a word, as the
searcher of all hearts. For where human testimonies are wanting, we resort
for refuge to the testimony of God; and particularly when any thing is to
be affirmed, which is hidden in the conscience. For which reason the Lord
is extremely angry with them who swear by strange gods, and interprets
that species of swearing as a proof of manifest defection from him. “Thy
children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods.”(846) And
he declares the atrociousness of this crime by his denunciation of
punishment: “I will cut off them that swear by the Lord, and that swear by
Malcham.”(847)

XXIV. Now, since we understand it to be the will of the Lord, that we
should reverence his name in our oaths, we ought to use so much the more
caution, lest, instead of reverence, they betray dishonour or contempt of
it. It is no trifling insult to him, when perjury is committed in his
name; and therefore the law calls it a profanation.(848) But what remains
to the Lord, when he is despoiled of his truth? he will then cease to be
God. But he is certainly despoiled of it, when he is made an abettor and
approver of a falsehood. Wherefore, when Joshua would induce Achan to a
confession of the truth, he says, “My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the
Lord God of Israel;”(849) implying in this that the Lord is grievously
dishonoured, if perjury be committed in his name. Nor is this strange; for
in such a case we do all that is in our power to brand his sacred name
with a falsehood. And that this form of expression was customary among the
Jews, whenever any man was called to take an oath, appears from a similar
adjuration used by the Pharisees in the Gospel of John.(850) To this
caution we are accustomed by the forms of oaths which are used in the
Scriptures: “The Lord liveth;”(851) “God do so and more also to me;”(852)
“I call God for a record upon my soul;”(853) which imply, that we cannot
invoke God to be a witness to our declarations, without imprecating his
vengeance upon us if we be guilty of perjury.

XXV. The name of God is rendered vile and contemptible, when it is used in
unnecessarily swearing even to what is true; for in this instance also it
is taken in vain. Wherefore it will not be sufficient to abstain from
perjury; unless we also remember, that swearing is permitted and
appointed, not for the sake of our pleasure or caprice, but from
necessity; and that the lawful use of it, therefore, is transgressed by
those who apply it to cases where it is not necessary. Now, no other
necessity can be pretended, but when we want to serve either religion or
charity. This crime, in the present day, is carried to a very great
extent; and it is so much the more intolerable, since by its frequency it
has ceased to be considered as a crime, though before the Divine tribunal
it is deemed no trivial offence. For the name of God is universally
profaned without concern in trifling conversations; and it is not
considered as sinful, because this presumptuous wickedness has been so
long practised with impunity. But the Divine command remains valid; the
sanction remains firm; and a future day will witness the completion of
that part of it which denounces a particular punishment against those who
take his name in vain. This precept is violated also in another way. If in
our oaths we substitute the servants of God in the place of God himself,
we are guilty of manifest impiety; because we thereby transfer to them the
glory due to the Deity. Nor is it without reason, that God, by a special
command, enjoins us to swear by his name,(854) and by a special
prohibition interdicts us from swearing by any strange gods.(855) And the
Apostle evidently attests the same, when he says, that “men swear by the
greater, but that God, because he could swear by no greater, sware by
himself.”(856)

XXVI. The Anabaptists, not satisfied with this limitation of oaths,
condemn all oaths without exception; because the prohibition of Christ is
general: “I say unto you, Swear not at all. But let your communication be,
Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of
evil.”(857) But by this mode of interpretation they set Christ in
opposition to the Father, as though he descended into this world to
abrogate the Father’s decrees. For in the law the eternal God not only
permits an oath, as a lawful thing, which would be sufficient to justify
the use of it, but in cases of necessity commands it.(858) Now, Christ
asserts, that “he and his Father are one,” that “he acts only according to
the commands of the Father,” that “his doctrine is not of himself,”
&c.(859) What then? Will they make God to contradict himself, by
prohibiting and condemning in our conduct that which he has before
approved and enjoined? But as the words of Christ involve some difficulty,
let us enter on a brief examination of them. Here we shall never arrive at
the truth, unless we attend to the design of Christ, and advert to the
subject of which he is there treating. His design is not to relax or to
restrict the law, but to reduce it to its true and genuine meaning, which
had been very much corrupted by the false comments of the scribes and
Pharisees. If we bear this in our minds, we shall not be of opinion that
Christ condemned all oaths, but only those which transgress the rule of
the law. It appears to have been the custom of the people at that time to
avoid nothing but perjuries; whereas the law forbids not only perjuries,
but likewise all vain and superfluous oaths. Our Lord, therefore, that
infallible expositor of the law, apprizes them that it is sinful, not only
to perjure themselves, but even to swear. To swear in what manner? In
vain. But the oaths which are sanctioned in the law he leaves without any
objection. They consider themselves as urging a very powerful argument,
when they violently insist on the particle _at all_; which, nevertheless,
refers not to the word _swear_, but to the forms of oaths that are there
subjoined. For the error there condemned consisted, partly, in a
supposition that in swearing by heaven and earth, there was no
interference with the name of God. Therefore, after the principal instance
of transgression, the Lord goes on to destroy all their subterfuges, that
they may not imagine themselves to have escaped by suppressing the name of
God, and calling heaven and earth to witness for them. For here, by the
way, it must be remarked, that men indirectly swear by God, though his
name is not expressed; as when they swear by the light of life, by the
bread which they eat, by their baptism, or by any other blessings which
they have received from the Divine munificence. Nor does Christ in that
place prohibit them from swearing by heaven, and earth, and Jerusalem, in
order to correct superstition, as some falsely imagine; but rather to
confute the sophistical subtlety of persons who thought there was no crime
in the foolish use of indirect oaths, as though they were not chargeable
with profaning the sacred name of God, which is engraven, however, on all
his benefits. But the case is different, where any mortal man, or one that
is dead, or an angel, is substituted in the place of God; as, among
idolatrous nations, adulation invented that odious form of swearing by the
life or genius of a king; because in such cases the deification of a
creature obscures and diminishes the glory of the only true God. But when
we mean nothing but to derive a confirmation to our assertions from the
sacred name of God, although it be done in an indirect manner, yet all
such frivolous oaths are offensive to his majesty. Christ deprives this
licentious practice of every vain excuse, by his prohibition of swearing
at all. James also aims at the same point,(860) where he uses the language
of Christ, which I have cited; because this presumption has always been
prevalent in the world, notwithstanding it is a profanation of the name of
God. For if you refer the particle _at all_ to the substance of swearing,
as though every oath, without exception, were unlawful, what means the
explanation which is immediately annexed, “Neither by heaven, neither by
earth,” &c., language evidently used in refutation of those cavils, which
the Jews considered as furnishing an excuse for their sin.

XXVII. It can no longer be doubtful, therefore, to persons of sound
judgment, that the Lord, in that passage, only condemns those oaths which
had been forbidden by the law. For even he, who exhibited in his life an
example of the perfection which he inculcated, hesitated not to make use
of oaths whenever occasion required; and his disciples, who, we doubt not,
were obedient to their master in all things, followed the same example.
Who can dare to assert, that Paul would have sworn, if all oaths had been
prohibited? But when the occasion requires it, he swears without any
scruple, and sometimes even adds an imprecation. The question, however, is
not yet decided; for it is the opinion of some persons, that public oaths
are the only exceptions from this prohibition; such as we take when
required by a magistrate; such also as princes are accustomed to use in
ratifying treaties; or subjects, when they swear allegiance to their
princes; or soldiers, as a military test; and others of a similar kind. To
this class also they justly refer those oaths which we find used by Paul
in assertion of the dignity of the gospel; because the Apostles, in the
exercise of their functions, were not private persons, but public
ministers of God. And indeed I will not deny that these are the safest
oaths; because they are sanctioned by the strongest testimonies of
Scripture. A magistrate is directed, in a dubious case, to put a witness
to his oath, and the witness, on the other hand, is required to answer on
his oath; and the Apostle says, that human controversies are adjusted by
this expedient.(861) In this precept both parties are furnished with a
complete justification of their conduct. Moreover we may observe, that
among the ancient heathen a public and solemn oath was held in great
reverence; but that common ones, which they used in their ordinary
intercourse, were not esteemed of any, or of much importance, because they
imagined that these were not regarded by the Divine majesty. But it would
be too dangerous to condemn private oaths, which are taken, in cases of
necessity, with sobriety, integrity, and reverence, since they are
supported both by reason and by scriptural examples. For if it be lawful
for private persons in an important and serious affair to appeal to God as
a judge between them, much more must it be allowable to invoke him as a
witness. Your brother will accuse you of perfidy; you endeavour to
exculpate yourself; he will not permit himself by any means to be
satisfied. If your reputation be endangered by his obstinate malignity,
you may, without any offence, appeal to the judgment of God, that in his
own time he will manifest your innocence. If the words be strictly
examined, it is a less thing to appeal to him as a witness than as a
judge. I see not, therefore, why we should assert such an appeal to him to
be unlawful. There are not wanting numerous examples of it. If the oath of
Abraham and Isaac with Abimelech be alleged to have been taken in a public
capacity, certainly Jacob and Laban were private persons, and yet they
confirmed the covenant between them by a mutual oath.(862) Boaz was a
private person, who confirmed in the same manner his promise of marriage
to Ruth.(863) Obadiah was a private person, a righteous man, and one that
feared the Lord, who declared with an oath the fact of which he wished to
convince Elijah.(864) I can find, therefore, no better rule, than that we
regulate our oaths in such a manner, that they be not rash or
inconsiderate, wanton or frivolous, but used in cases of real necessity,
as for vindicating the glory of the Lord, or promoting the edification of
our brother; which is the end of this commandment of the law.

The Fourth Commandment.

_Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of
the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, &c._

XXVIII. The end of this precept is, that, being dead to our own affections
and works, we should meditate on the kingdom of God, and be exercised in
that meditation in the observance of his institutions. But, as it has an
aspect peculiar and distinct from the others, it requires a little
different kind of exposition. The fathers frequently call it a _shadowy
commandment_, because it contains the external observance of the day,
which was abolished with the rest of the figures at the advent of Christ.
And there is much truth in their observation; but it reaches only half of
the subject. Wherefore it is necessary to seek further for an exposition,
and to consider three causes, on which I think I have observed this
commandment to rest. For it was the design of the heavenly Lawgiver, under
the rest of the seventh day, to give the people of Israel a figure of the
spiritual rest, by which the faithful ought to refrain from their own
works, in order to leave God to work within them. His design was,
secondly, that there should be a stated day, on which they might assemble
together to hear the law and perform the ceremonies, or at least which
they might especially devote to meditations on his works; that by this
recollection they might be led to the exercises of piety. Thirdly, he
thought it right that servants, and persons living under the jurisdiction
of others, should be indulged with a day of rest, that they might enjoy
some remission from their labour.

XXIX. Yet we are taught in many places that this adumbration of the
spiritual rest was the principal design of the sabbath. For the Lord is
hardly so strict in his requisitions of obedience to any other
precept.(865) When he means to intimate, in the Prophets, that religion is
totally subverted, he complains that his sabbaths are polluted, violated,
neglected, and profaned;(866) as though, in case of that duty being
neglected, there remained no other way in which he could be honoured. On
the other hand, he notices the observance of it with singular encomiums.
Wherefore also, among the other Divine communications, the faithful used
very highly to esteem the revelation of the sabbath. For this is the
language of the Levites in a solemn assembly, recorded by Nehemiah: “Thou
madest known unto our fathers thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them
precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses.”(867) We see the
singular estimation in which it is held above all the commandments of the
law. All these things tend to display the dignity of the mystery, which is
beautifully expressed by Moses and Ezekiel. In Exodus we read as follows:
“Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you
throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth
sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto
you. The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath
throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign
between me and the children of Israel for ever.”(868) This is more fully
expressed by Ezekiel; but the substance of what he says is, that the
sabbath was a sign by which the Israelites might know that God was their
sanctifier.(869) If our sanctification consists properly in the
mortification of our own will, there is a very natural analogy between the
external sign and the internal thing which it represents. We must rest
altogether, that God may operate within us; we must recede from our own
will, resign our own heart, and renounce all our carnal affections; in
short, we must cease from all the efforts of our own understanding, that
having God operating within us, we may enjoy rest in him, as we are also
taught by the Apostle.(870)

XXX. This perpetual cessation was represented to the Jews by the
observance of one day in seven, which the Lord, in order that it might be
the more religiously kept, recommended by his own example. For it is no
small stimulus to any action, for a man to know that he is imitating his
Creator. If any one inquire after a hidden signification in the septenary
number, it is probable, that because in Scripture it is the number of
perfection, it is here selected to denote perpetual duration. This is
confirmed also by the circumstance, that Moses, with that day in which he
narrates that the Lord rested from his works, concludes his description of
the succession of days and nights. We may also adduce another probable
conjecture respecting this number—that the Lord intended to signify that
the sabbath would never be completed until the arrival of the last day.
For in it we begin that blessed rest, in which we make new advances from
day to day. But because we are still engaged in a perpetual warfare with
the flesh, it will not be consummated before the completion of that
prediction of Isaiah, “It shall come to pass, that from one new moon to
another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship
before me, saith the Lord;”(871) that is, when God shall be “all in
all.”(872) The Lord may be considered, therefore, as having delineated to
his people, in the seventh day, the future perfection of his sabbath in
the last day, that, by a continual meditation on the sabbath during their
whole life, they might be aspiring towards this perfection.

XXXI. If any one disapprove of this observation on the number, as too
curious, I object not to its being understood in a more simple manner;
that the Lord ordained a certain day, that the people under the discipline
of the law might be exercised in continual meditations on the spiritual
rest; that he appointed the seventh day, either because he foresaw it
would be sufficient, or in order that the proposal of a resemblance to his
own example might operate as a stronger stimulus to the people, or at
least to apprize them that the only end of the sabbath was to promote
their conformity to their Creator. For this is of little importance,
provided we retain the mystery, which is principally exhibited, of a
perpetual rest from our own works. To the contemplation of this, the
Prophets used frequently to recall the Jews, that they might not suppose
themselves to have discharged their duty merely by a cessation from manual
labours. Beside the passages already cited, we have the following in
Isaiah: “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy
pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the
Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor
finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou
delight thyself in the Lord,” &c.(873) But all that it contained of a
ceremonial nature was without doubt abolished by the advent of the Lord
Christ. For he is the truth, at whose presence all figures disappear; the
body, at the sight of which all the shadows are relinquished. He, I say,
is the true fulfilment of the sabbath. Having been “buried with him by
baptism, we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, that
being partakers of his resurrection, we may walk in newness of life.”(874)
Therefore the Apostle says in another place, that “the sabbath was a
shadow of things to come; but the _body_ is of Christ;”(875) that is, the
real substance of the truth, which he has beautifully explained in that
passage. This is contained not in one day, but in the whole course of our
life, till, being wholly dead to ourselves, we be filled with the life of
God. Christians therefore ought to depart from all superstitious
observance of days.

XXXII. As the two latter causes, however, ought not to be numbered among
the ancient shadows, but are equally suitable to all ages,—though the
sabbath is abrogated, yet it is still customary among us to assemble on
stated days for hearing the word, for breaking the mystic bread, and for
public prayers; and also to allow servants and labourers a remission from
their labour. That in commanding the sabbath, the Lord had regard to both
these things, cannot be doubted. The first is abundantly confirmed even by
the practice of the Jews. The second is proved by Moses, in Deuteronomy,
in these words: “that thy man‐servant and thy maid‐servant may rest as
well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of
Egypt.”(876) Also, in Exodus: “that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and
the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.”(877) Who can
deny that both these things are as proper for us as for the Jews?
Assemblies of the Church are enjoined in the Divine word, and the
necessity of them is sufficiently known even from the experience of life.
Unless there be stated days appointed for them, how can they be held?
According to the direction of the Apostle, “all things” are to “be done
decently and in order” among us.(878) But so far is it from being possible
to preserve order and decorum without this regulation, that, if it were
abolished, the Church would be in imminent danger of immediate convulsion
and ruin. But if we feel the same necessity, to relieve which the Lord
enjoined the sabbath upon the Jews, let no one plead that it does not
belong to us. For our most provident and indulgent Father has been no less
attentive to provide for our necessity than for that of the Jews. But why,
it may be asked, do we not rather assemble on every day, that so all
distinction of days may be removed? I sincerely wish that this were
practised; and truly spiritual wisdom would be well worthy of some portion
of time being daily allotted to it; but if the infirmity of many persons
will not admit of daily assemblies, and charity does not permit us to
require more of them, why should we not obey the rule which we have
imposed upon us by the will of God?

XXXIII. I am obliged to be rather more diffuse on this point, because, in
the present age, some unquiet spirits have been raising noisy contentions
respecting the Lord’s day. They complain that Christians are tinctured
with Judaism, because they retain any observance of days. But I reply,
that the Lord’s day is not observed by us upon the principles of Judaism;
because in this respect the difference between us and the Jews is very
great. For we celebrate it not with scrupulous rigour, as a ceremony which
we conceive to be a figure of some spiritual mystery, but only use it as a
remedy necessary to the preservation of order in the Church. But they say,
Paul teaches that Christians are not to be judged in the observance of it,
because it is a shadow of something future.(879) Therefore he is “afraid
lest” he has “bestowed” on the Galatians “labour in vain,” because they
continued to “observe days.”(880) And in the Epistle to the Romans, he
asserts him to be “weak in the faith,” who “esteemeth one day above
another.”(881) But who, these furious zealots only excepted, does not see
what observance the apostle intends? For they did not observe them for the
sake of political and ecclesiastical order; but when they retained them as
shadows of spiritual things, they were so far guilty of obscuring the
glory of Christ and the light of the gospel. They did not, therefore, rest
from their manual labours, as from employments which would divert them
from sacred studies and meditations; but from a principle of superstition,
imagining their cessation from labour to be still an expression of
reverence for the mysteries formerly represented by it. This preposterous
distinction of days the Apostle strenuously opposes; and not that
legitimate difference which promotes the peace of the Christian Church.
For in the churches which he founded, the sabbath was retained for this
purpose. He prescribes the same day to the Corinthians, for making
collections for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem. If superstition
be an object of fear, there was more danger in the holy days of the Jews,
than in the Lord’s days now observed by Christians. Now, whereas it was
expedient for the destruction of superstition, the day which the Jews kept
holy was abolished; and it being necessary for the preservation of
decorum, order, and peace, in the Christian Church, another day was
appointed for the same use.

XXXIV. However, the ancients have not without sufficient reason
substituted what we call the Lord’s day in the room of the sabbath. For
since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and consummation of that
true rest, which was adumbrated by the ancient sabbath, the same day which
put an end to the shadows, admonishes Christians not to adhere to a
shadowy ceremony. Yet I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number,
that I would oblige the Church to an invariable adherence to it; nor will
I condemn those churches which have other solemn days for their
assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from superstition. And this
will be the case, if they be only designed for the observance of
discipline and well‐regulated order. Let us sum up the whole in the
following manner: As the truth was delivered to the Jews under a figure,
so it is given to us without any shadows; first, in order that during our
whole life we should meditate on a perpetual rest from our own works, that
the Lord may operate within us by his Spirit; secondly, that every man,
whenever he has leisure, should diligently exercise himself in private in
pious reflections on the works of God, and also that we should at the same
time observe the legitimate order of the Church, appointed for the hearing
of the word, for the administration of the sacraments, and for public
prayer; thirdly, that we should not unkindly oppress those who are subject
to us. Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past ages have
infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming that nothing but the
ceremonial part of this commandment, which, according to them, is the
appointment of the seventh day, has been abrogated, but that the moral
part of it, that is, the observance of one day in seven, still remains.
But this is only changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they
retain the same opinion of the holiness of a day; for on this principle
the same mysterious signification would still be attributed to particular
days, which they formerly obtained among the Jews. And indeed we see what
advantages have arisen from such a sentiment. For those who adhere to it,
far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and superstitious observance of
the sabbath; so that the reproofs, which we find in Isaiah, are equally
applicable to them in the present age, as to those whom the Prophet
reproved in his time. But the principal thing to be remembered is the
general doctrine; that, lest religion decay or languish among us, sacred
assemblies ought diligently to be held, and that we ought to use those
external means which are adapted to support the worship of God.

The Fifth Commandment.

_Honour thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon
the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee._

XXXV. The end of this precept is, that since the Lord God desires the
preservation of the order he has appointed, the degrees of preëminence
fixed by him ought to be inviolably preserved. The sum of it, therefore,
will be, that we should reverence them whom God has exalted to any
authority over us, and should render them honour, obedience, and
gratitude. Whence follows a prohibition to derogate from their dignity by
contempt, obstinacy, or ingratitude. For in the Scripture the word
“honour” has an extensive signification; as, when the Apostle directs that
“the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honour,”(882) he
means not only that they are entitled to reverence, but likewise such a
remuneration as their ministry deserves. But as this precept, which
enjoins subjection to superiors, is exceedingly repugnant to the depravity
of human nature, whose ardent desire of exaltation will scarcely admit of
subjection, it has therefore proposed as an example that kind of
superiority which is naturally most amiable and least invidious; because
that might the more easily mollify and incline our minds to a habit of
submission. By that subjection, therefore, which is most easy to be borne,
the Lord accustoms us by degrees to every kind of legitimate obedience;
because the reason of all is the same. For to those, to whom he gives any
preëminence, he communicates his own authority, as far as is necessary for
the preservation of that preëminence. The titles of Father, God, and Lord,
are so eminently applicable to him, that, whenever we hear either of them
mentioned, our minds cannot but be strongly affected with a sense of his
majesty. Those, therefore, on whom he bestows these titles, he illuminates
with a ray of his splendour, to render them all honourable in their
respective stations. Thus in a father we ought to recognize something
Divine; for it is not without reason that he bears one of the titles of
the Deity. Our prince, or our lord, enjoys an honour somewhat similar to
that which is given to God.

XXXVI. Wherefore it ought not to be doubted that God here lays down a
universal rule for our conduct; namely, that to every one, whom we know to
be placed in authority over us by his appointment, we should render
reverence, obedience, gratitude, and all the other services in our power.
Nor does it make any difference, whether they are worthy of this honour,
or not. For whatever be their characters, yet it is not without the
appointment of the Divine providence, that they have attained that
station, on account of which the supreme Legislator has commanded them to
be honoured. He has particularly enjoined reverence to our parents, who
have brought us into this life; which nature itself ought to teach us. For
those who violate the parental authority by contempt or rebellion, are not
men, but monsters. Therefore the Lord commands all those, who are
disobedient to their parents, to be put to death, as having rendered
themselves unworthy to enjoy the light, by their disregard of those by
whose means they were introduced to it. And various appendices to the law
evince the truth of our observation, that the honour here intended
consists in reverence, obedience, and gratitude. The first the Lord
confirms, when he commands him to be slain who has cursed his father or
mother;(883) for in that case he punishes contempt. He confirms the
second, when he denounces the punishment of death against disobedient and
rebellious children.(884) The third is supported by Christ, who says, “God
commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother;” and, “He that curseth
father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say
to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be
profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your
tradition.”(885) And whenever Paul mentions this commandment, he explains
it as a requisition of obedience.(886)

XXXVII. In order to recommend it, a promise is annexed, which is a further
intimation how acceptable to God that submission is which is here
enjoined. Paul employs that stimulus to arouse our inattention, when he
says, “This is the first commandment with promise.” For the preceding
promise, in the first table, was not particularly confined to one
commandment, but extended to the whole law. Now, the true explanation of
this promise is, that the Lord spake particularly to the Israelites
concerning the land which he had promised them as an inheritance. If the
possession of that land therefore was a pledge of the Divine goodness, we
need not wonder, if it was the Lord’s will to manifest his favour by
bestowing length of life, in order to prolong the enjoyment of the
blessing conferred by him. The meaning of it therefore is, Honour thy
father and thy mother, that through the space of a long life thou mayest
enjoy the possession of the land, which will be to thee a testimony of my
favour. But, as the whole earth is blessed to the faithful, we justly
place the present life among the blessings we receive from God. Wherefore
this promise belongs likewise to us, inasmuch as the continuance of the
present life affords us a proof of the Divine benevolence. For neither is
it promised to us, nor was it promised to the Jews, as though it contained
any blessedness in itself; but because to the pious it is generally a
token of the Divine favour. Therefore, if a son, that is obedient to his
parents, happen to be removed out of life before the age of
maturity,—which is a case of frequent occurrence,—the Lord, nevertheless,
perseveres with as much punctuality in the completion of his promise, as
if he were to reward a person with a hundred acres of land to whom he had
only promised one. The whole consists in this: We should consider that
long life is promised to us so far as it is the blessing of God; but that
it is a blessing, only as it is a proof of the favour of God, which he
infinitely more richly and substantially testifies and actually
demonstrates to his servants in their death.

XXXVIII. Moreover, when the Lord promises the blessing of the present life
to those children who honour their parents with proper reverence, he at
the same time implies that a certain curse impends over all those who are
disobedient and perverse. And that it might not fail of being executed, he
pronounces them in his law to be liable to the sentence of death, and
commands that punishment to be inflicted on them. If they escape that, he
punishes them himself in some other way. For we see what great numbers of
persons of this character fall in battles and in private quarrels; others
are afflicted in unusual ways; and almost all of them are proofs of the
truth of this threatening. But if any arrive at an extreme age, being
deprived of the Divine blessing, they only languish in misery in this
life, and are reserved to greater punishments hereafter; and consequently
they are far from participating in the blessing promised to dutiful
children. But it must be remarked by the way, that we are commanded to
obey them only “in the Lord;” and this is evident from the foundation
before laid; for they preside in that station to which the Lord has
exalted them by communicating to them a portion of his honour. Wherefore
the submission exercised towards them ought to be a step towards honouring
the Supreme Father. Therefore, if they instigate us to any transgression
of the law, we may justly consider them not as parents, but as strangers,
who attempt to seduce us from obedience to our real Father. The same
observation is applicable to princes, lords, and superiors of every
description. For it is infamous and absurd, that their eminence should
avail to depreciate the preëminence of God, upon which it depends, and to
which it ought to conduct us.

The Sixth Commandment.

_Thou shalt not kill._

XXXIX. The end of this precept is, that since God has connected mankind
together in a kind of unity, every man ought to consider himself as
charged with the safety of all. In short, then, all violence and
injustice, and every kind of mischief, which may injure the body of our
neighbour, are forbidden to us. And therefore we are enjoined, if it be in
our power, to assist in protecting the lives of our neighbours; to exert
ourselves with fidelity for this purpose; to procure those things which
conduce to their tranquillity; to be vigilant in shielding them from
injuries; and in cases of danger to afford them our assistance. If we
remember that this is the language of the Divine Legislator, we should
consider, at the same time, that he intends this rule to govern the soul.
For it were ridiculous, that he who beholds the thoughts of the heart, and
principally insists on them, should content himself with forming only the
body to true righteousness. Mental homicide, therefore, is likewise
prohibited, and an internal disposition to preserve the life of our
brother is commanded in this law. The hand, indeed, accomplishes the
homicide, but it is conceived by the mind under the influence of anger and
hatred. Examine whether you can be angry with your brother, without being
inflamed with a desire of doing him some injury. If you cannot be angry
with him, then you cannot hate him; for hatred is nothing more than
inveterate anger. However you may dissemble, and endeavour to extricate
yourself by vain subterfuges, whenever there is either anger or hatred,
there is also a disposition to do injury. If you persist in your evasions,
it is already pronounced by the Holy Spirit, that “Whosoever hateth his
brother is a murderer.”(887) It is declared by the Lord Christ, “that
whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of
the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in
danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in
danger of hell fire.”(888)

XL. Now, the Scripture states two reasons on which this precept is
founded; the first, that man is the image of God; the second, that he is
our own flesh. Wherefore, unless we would violate the image of God, we
ought to hold the personal safety of our neighbour inviolably sacred; and
unless we would divest ourselves of humanity, we ought to cherish him as
our own flesh. The motives which are derived from the redemption and grace
of Christ will be treated in another place. These two characters, which
are inseparable from the nature of man, God requires us to consider as
motives to our exertions for his security; so that we may reverence his
image impressed on him, and show an affectionate regard for our own flesh.
That person, therefore, is not innocent of the crime of murder, who has
merely restrained himself from the effusion of blood. If you perpetrate,
if you attempt, if you only conceive in your mind any thing inimical to
the safety of another, you stand guilty of murder. Unless you also
endeavour to defend him to the utmost of your ability and opportunity, you
are guilty of the same inhuman transgression of the law. But if so much
concern be discovered for the safety of the body, we may conclude, how
much care and attention should be devoted to the safety of the soul,
which, in the sight of God, is of infinitely superior value.

The Seventh Commandment.

_Thou shalt not commit adultery._

XLI. The end of this precept is, that because God loves chastity and
purity, we ought to depart from all uncleanness. The sum of it therefore
is, that we ought not to be polluted by any carnal impurity, or libidinous
intemperance. To this prohibition corresponds the affirmative injunction,
that every part of our lives ought to be regulated by chastity and
continence. But he expressly forbids adultery, to which all incontinence
tends; in order that by the turpitude of that which is very gross and
palpable, being an infamous pollution of the body, he may lead us to
abominate every unlawful passion. Since man was created in such a state as
not to live a solitary life, but to be united to a help‐meet; and moreover
since the curse of sin has increased this necessity,—the Lord has afforded
us ample assistance in this case by the institution of marriage—a
connection which he has not only originated by his authority, but also
sanctified by his blessing. Whence it appears, that every other union, but
that of marriage, is cursed in his sight; and that the conjugal union
itself is appointed as a remedy for our necessity, that we may not break
out into unrestrained licentiousness. Let us not flatter ourselves,
therefore, since we hear that there can be no cohabitation of male and
female, except in marriage, without the curse of God.

XLII. Now, since the original constitution of human nature, and the
violence of the passions consequent upon the fall, have rendered a union
of the sexes doubly necessary, except to those whom God has exempted from
that necessity by peculiar grace, let every one carefully examine what is
given to him. Virginity, I acknowledge, is a virtue not to be despised.
But as this is denied to some, and to others is granted only for a season,
let those who are troubled with incontinence, and cannot succeed in
resisting it, avail themselves of the help of marriage, that they may
preserve their chastity according to the degree of their calling. For
persons who “cannot receive this saying,”(889) if they do not assist their
frailty by the remedy offered and granted to them, oppose God and resist
his ordinance. Here let no one object, as many do in the present day, that
with the help of God he can do all things. For the assistance of God is
granted only to them who walk in his ways, that is, in their calling;
which is deserted by all those who neglect the means which God has
afforded them, and strive to overcome their necessities by vain
presumption. That continence is a peculiar gift of God, and of that kind
which is not imparted promiscuously, or to the whole body of the Church,
but only conferred on a few of its members, is affirmed by our Lord. For
he mentions a certain class of men who “have made themselves eunuchs for
the kingdom of heaven’s sake;”(890) that is, that they might be more at
liberty to devote their attention to the affairs of the kingdom of heaven.
But that no one might suppose this to be in the power of man, he had
already declared that “all men cannot receive this saying, save they to
whom it is given.” And he concludes, “He that is able to receive it, let
him receive it.” Paul is still more explicit, when he says, that “every
man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after
that.”(891)

XLIII. Since we are so expressly apprized that it is not in the power of
every one to preserve chastity in celibacy, even with the most strenuous
efforts for that purpose, and that it is a peculiar grace, which the Lord
confers only on particular persons, that he may have them more ready for
his service, do we not resist God, and strive against the nature
instituted by him, unless we accommodate our manner of life to the measure
of our ability? In this commandment the Lord prohibits adultery: therefore
he requires of us purity and chastity. The only way of preserving this is,
that every one should measure himself by his own capacity. Let no one
rashly despise marriage as a thing useless or unnecessary to him; let no
one prefer celibacy, unless he can dispense with a wife. And in that state
let him not consult his carnal tranquillity or advantage, but only that,
being exempted from this restraint, he may be the more prompt and ready
for all the duties of piety. Moreover, as this benefit is conferred upon
many persons only for a season, let every one refrain from marriage as
long as he shall be capable of supporting a life of celibacy. When his
strength fails to overcome his passions, let him consider that the Lord
has laid him under a necessity of marrying. This is evident from the
direction of the Apostle: “To avoid fornication, let every man have his
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Again: “If they
cannot contain, let them marry.”(892) Here, in the first place, he
signifies that the majority of men are subject to the vice of
incontinence; in the next place, of those who are subject to it, he makes
no exception, but enjoins them all to have recourse to that sole remedy
which obviates unchastity. Those who are incontinent, therefore, if they
neglect this method of curing their infirmity, are guilty of sin, in not
obeying this injunction of the Apostle. And let not him who refrains from
actual fornication, flatter himself, as though he could not be charged
with unchastity, while his heart at the same time is inflamed with
libidinous desire. For Paul defines chastity to consist in sanctity of
mind connected with purity of body. “The unmarried woman,” he says,
“careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and
in spirit.”(893) Therefore, when he gives a reason to confirm the
preceding injunction, he does not content himself with saying that it is
better for a man to marry than to pollute himself with the society of a
harlot, but affirms that “it is better to marry than to burn.”(894)

XLIV. Now, if married persons are satisfied that their society is attended
with the blessing of the Lord, they are thereby admonished that it must
not be contaminated by libidinous and dissolute intemperance. For if the
honour of marriage conceals the shame of incontinence, it ought not on
that account to be made an incitement to it. Wherefore let it not be
supposed by married persons that all things are lawful to them. Every man
should observe sobriety towards his wife, and every wife, reciprocally,
towards her husband; conducting themselves in such a manner as to do
nothing unbecoming the decorum and temperance of marriage. For thus ought
marriage contracted in the Lord to be regulated by moderation and modesty,
and not to break out into the vilest lasciviousness. Such sensuality has
been stigmatized by Ambrose with a severe, but not unmerited censure, when
he calls those who in their conjugal intercourse have no regard to modesty
or decorum, the adulterers of their own wives. Lastly, let us consider who
the Legislator is, by whom adultery is here condemned. It is no other than
he who ought to have the entire possession of us, and justly requires the
whole of our spirit, soul, and body. Therefore, when he prohibits us from
committing adultery, he at the same time forbids us, either by
lasciviously ornamenting our persons, or by obscene gesticulations, or by
impure expressions, insidiously to attack the chastity of others. For
there is much reason in the address of Archelaus to a young man clothed in
an immoderately effeminate and delicate manner, that it was immaterial in
what part he was immodest, with respect to God, who abominates all
contamination, in whatever part it may discover itself, either of soul or
of body. And that there may be no doubt on the subject, let us remember
that God here recommends chastity. If the Lord requires chastity of us, he
condemns every thing contrary to it. Wherefore, if we aspire to obedience,
neither let our mind internally burn with depraved concupiscence, nor let
our eyes wanton into corrupt affections, nor let our body be adorned for
purposes of seduction, nor let our tongue with impure speeches allure our
mind to similar thoughts, nor let us inflame ourselves with intemperance.
For all these vices are stains, by which the purity of chastity is
defiled.

The Eighth Commandment.

_Thou shalt not steal._

XLV. The end of this precept is, that, as injustice is an abomination to
God, every man may possess what belongs to him. The sum of it, then, is,
that we are forbidden to covet the property of others, and are therefore
enjoined faithfully to use our endeavours to preserve to every man what
justly belongs to him. For we ought to consider, that what a man possesses
has fallen to his lot, not by a fortuitous contingency, but by the
distribution of the supreme Lord of all; and that therefore no man can be
deprived of his possessions by criminal methods, without an injury being
done to the Divine dispenser of them. But the species of theft are
numerous. One consists in violence; when the property of any person is
plundered by force and predatory license. Another consists in malicious
imposture; when it is taken away in a fraudulent manner. Another consists
in more secret cunning; where any one is deprived of his property under
the mask of justice. Another consists in flatteries; where we are cheated
under the pretence of a donation. But not to dwell too long on the recital
of the different species of theft, let us remember that all artifices by
which the possessions and wealth of our neighbours are transferred to us,
whenever they deviate from sincere love into a desire of deceiving, or
doing any kind of injury, are to be esteemed acts of theft. This is the
only view in which God considers them, even though the property may be
gained by a suit at law. For he sees the tedious manœuvres with which the
designing man begins to decoy his more simple neighbour, till at length he
entangles him in his snares. He sees the cruel and inhuman laws, by which
the more powerful man oppresses and ruins him that is weaker. He sees the
baits with which the more crafty trap the imprudent. All which things are
concealed from the judgment of man, nor ever come to his knowledge. And
this kind of injury relates not only to money, or to goods, or to lands,
but to whatever each individual is justly entitled to; for we defraud our
neighbours of their property, if we deny them those kind offices, which it
is our duty to perform to them. If an idle agent or steward devour the
substance of his master, and be inattentive to the care of his domestic
affairs; if he either improperly waste, or squander with a luxurious
profusion, the property intrusted to him; if a servant deride his master,
if he divulge his secrets, if by any means he betray either his life or
his property; and if, on the other hand, a master inhumanly oppress his
family,—God holds him guilty of theft. For the property of others is
withheld and misapplied by him, who does not perform towards them those
offices which the duty of his situation requires of him.

XLVI. We shall rightly obey this commandment therefore, if, contented with
our own lot, we seek no gain but in an honest and lawful way; if we
neither desire to enrich ourselves by injustice, nor attempt to ruin the
fortune of our neighbour, in order to increase our own; if we do not
labour to accumulate wealth by cruelty, and at the expense of the blood of
others; if we do not greedily scrape together from every quarter,
regardless of right or wrong, whatever may conduce to satiate our avarice
or support our prodigality. On the contrary, it should be our constant
aim, as far as possible, faithfully to assist all by our advice and our
property in preserving what belongs to them; but if we are concerned with
perfidious and fallacious men, let us be prepared rather to recede a
little from our just right than to contend with them. Moreover, let us
communicate to the necessities, and according to our ability alleviate the
poverty, of those whom we perceive to be pressed by any embarrassment of
their circumstances. Lastly, let every man examine what obligations his
duty lays him under to others, and let him faithfully discharge the duties
which he owes them. For this reason the people should honour their
governors, patiently submit to their authority, obey their laws and
mandates, and resist nothing, to which they can submit consistently with
the Divine will. On the other hand, let governors take care of their
people, preserve the public peace, protect the good, punish the wicked,
and administer all things in such a manner, as becomes those who must
render an account of their office to God the supreme Judge. Let the
ministers of churches faithfully devote themselves to the ministry of the
word, and let them never adulterate the doctrine of salvation, but deliver
it pure and uncontaminated to the people of God. Let them teach, not only
by their doctrine, but by the example of their lives; in a word, let them
preside as good shepherds over the sheep. Let the people, on their part,
receive them as the messengers and apostles of God, render to them that
honour to which the supreme Master has exalted them, and furnish them with
the necessaries of life. Let parents undertake the support, government,
and instruction of their children, as committed by God to their care; nor
let them exasperate their minds and alienate their affections from them by
cruelty, but cherish and embrace them with the lenity and indulgence
becoming their character. And that obedience is due to them from their
children has been before observed. Let juniors revere old age, since the
Lord has designed that age to be honourable. Let old men, by their
prudence and superior experience, guide the imbecility of youth; not
teasing them with sharp and clamorous invectives, but tempering severity
with mildness and affability. Let servants show themselves obedient and
diligent in the service of their masters; and that not only in appearance,
but from the heart, as serving God himself. Neither let masters behave
morosely and perversely to their servants, harassing them with excessive
asperity, or treating them with contempt; but rather acknowledge them as
their brethren and companions in the service of the heavenly Master,
entitled to be regarded with mutual affection, and to receive kind
treatment. In this manner, I say, let every man consider what duties he
owes to his neighbours, according to the relations he sustains; and those
duties let him discharge. Moreover, our attention should always be
directed to the Legislator; to remind us that this law is ordained for our
hearts as much as for our hands, in order that men may study both to
protect the property and to promote the interests of others.

The Ninth Commandment.

_Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour._

XLVII. The end of this precept is, that because God, who is truth itself,
execrates a lie, we ought to preserve the truth without the least
disguise. The sum of it therefore is, that we neither violate the
character of any man, either by calumnies or by false accusations, nor
distress him in his property by falsehood, nor injure him by detraction or
impertinence. This prohibition is connected with an injunction to do all
the service we can to every man, by affirming the truth for the protection
of his reputation and his property. The Lord seems to have intended the
following words as an exposition of this command: “Thou shalt not raise a
false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous
witness.” Again: “Keep thee far from a false matter.”(895) In another
place also he not only forbids us to practise backbiting and tale‐bearing
among the people, but prohibits every man from deceiving his brother;(896)
for he cautions us against both in distinct commandments. Indeed there is
no doubt but that, as, in the preceding precepts, he has prohibited
cruelty, impurity, and avarice, so in this he forbids falsehood; of which
there are two branches, as we have before observed. For either we
transgress against the reputation of our neighbours by malignity and
perverse detraction, or by falsehood and sometimes by obloquy we injure
their interests. It is immaterial whether we suppose the testimony here
designed to be solemn and judicial, or a common one, which is delivered in
private conversations. For we must always recur to this maxim—that, of
each of the separate kinds of vices, one species is proposed as an
example, to which the rest may be referred; and that, in general, the
species selected is that in which the turpitude of the vice is most
conspicuous. It is proper, however, to extend it more generally to
calumnies and detraction, by which our neighbours are unjustly harassed;
because falsehood in a forensic testimony is always attended with perjury.
But perjury, being a profanation and violation of the name of God, has
already been sufficiently condemned in the third commandment. Wherefore
the legitimate observance of this precept is, that our tongue, by
asserting the truth, ought to serve both the reputation and the profit of
our neighbours. The equity of this is self‐evident. For if a good name be
more precious than any treasures whatever, a man sustains as great an
injury when he is deprived of the integrity of his character, as when he
is despoiled of his wealth. And in plundering his substance, there is
sometimes as much effected by false testimony, as by the hands of
violence.

XLVIII. Nevertheless, it is wonderful with what supine security this
precept is generally transgressed, so that few persons can be found, who
are not notoriously subject to this malady; we are so fascinated with the
malignant pleasure of examining and detecting the faults of others. Nor
should we suppose it to be a sufficient excuse, that in many cases we
cannot be charged with falsehood. For he who forbids the character of our
brother to be bespattered with falsehood, wills also that as far as the
truth will permit, it be preserved immaculate. For although he only guards
it against falsehood, he thereby suggests that it is committed to his
charge. But this should be sufficient to induce us to defend the fair
character of our neighbour—that God concerns himself in its protection.
Wherefore detraction is, without doubt, universally condemned. Now, by
detraction we mean, not reproof, which is given from a motive of
correction; not accusation or judicial denunciation, by which recompense
is demanded for an injury; not public reprehension, which tends to strike
terror into other offenders; not a discovery to them whose safety depends
on their being previously warned, that they may not be endangered through
ignorance; but odious crimination, which arises from malice, and a violent
propensity to detraction. This commandment also extends so far as to
forbid us to affect a pleasantry tinctured with scurrilous and bitter
sarcasms, severely lashing the faults of others under the appearance of
sport; which is the practice of some who aim at the praise of raillery, to
the prejudice of the modesty and feelings of others; for such wantonness
sometimes fixes a lasting stigma on the characters of our brethren. Now,
if we turn our eyes to the Legislator whose proper right it is to rule our
ears and our minds, as much as our tongues, it will certainly appear that
an avidity of hearing detraction, and an unreasonable propensity to
unfavourable opinions respecting others, are equally prohibited. For it
would be ridiculous for any one to suppose that God hates slander in the
tongue, and does not reprobate malice in the heart. Wherefore, if we
possess the true fear and love of God, let us make it our study, that as
far as is practicable and expedient, and consistent with charity, we
devote neither our tongues nor our ears to opprobrious and malicious
raillery, nor inadvertently attend to unfavourable suspicions; but that,
putting fair constructions on every man’s words and actions, we regulate
our hearts, our ears, and our tongues, with a view to preserve the
reputation of all around us.

The Tenth Commandment.

_Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man‐servant, nor his maid‐servant,
nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s._

XLIX. The end of this precept is, that, since it is the will of God that
our whole soul should be under the influence of love, every desire
inconsistent with charity ought to be expelled from our minds. The sum,
then, will be, that no thought should obtrude itself upon us, which would
excite in our minds any desire that is noxious, and tends to the detriment
of another. To which corresponds the affirmative precept, that all our
conceptions, deliberations, resolutions, and undertakings, ought to be
consistent with the benefit and advantage of our neighbours. But here we
meet with what appears to be a great and perplexing difficulty. For if our
previous assertions be true, that the terms _adultery_ and _theft_
comprehend the licentious desire, and the injurious and criminal
intention, this may be thought to have superseded the necessity of a
separate command being afterwards introduced, forbidding us to covet the
possessions of others. But we shall easily solve this difficulty by a
distinction between intention and concupiscence. For an intention, as we
have before observed in explaining the former commandments, is a
deliberate consent of the will, when the mind has been enslaved by any
unlawful desire. Concupiscence may exist without such deliberation or
consent, when the mind is only attracted and stimulated by vain and
corrupt objects. As the Lord, therefore, has hitherto commanded our wills,
efforts, and actions to be subject to the law of love, so now he directs
that the conceptions of our minds be subject to the same regulation, lest
any of them be corrupt and perverted, and give our hearts an improper
impulse. As he has forbidden our minds to be inclined and persuaded to
anger, hatred, adultery, rapine, and falsehood, so now he prohibits them
from being instigated to these vices.

L. Nor is it without cause that he requires such consummate rectitude. For
who can deny that it is reasonable for all the powers of our souls to be
under the influence of love? But if any one deviate from the path of love,
who can deny that that soul is in an unhealthy state? Now, whence is it,
that your mind conceives desires prejudicial to your neighbour, but that,
neglecting his interest, you consult nothing but your own? For if your
heart were full of love, there would be no part of it exposed to such
imaginations. It must therefore be destitute of love, so far as it is the
seat of concupiscence. Some one will object, that it is unreasonable, that
imaginations, which without reflection flutter about in the mind, and then
vanish away, should be condemned as symptoms of concupiscence, which has
its seat in the heart. I reply, that the present question relates to that
kind of imaginations, which, when they are presented to our
understandings, at the same time strike our hearts, and inflame them with
cupidity; since the mind never entertains a wish for any thing after which
the heart is not excited to pant. Therefore God enjoins a wonderful ardour
of love, which he will not allow to be interrupted even by the smallest
degree of concupiscence. He requires a heart admirably well regulated,
which he permits not to be disturbed with the least emotion contrary to
the law of love. Do not imagine that this doctrine is unsupported by any
great authority; for I derived the first idea of it from Augustine. Now,
though the design of the Lord was to prohibit us from all corrupt desires,
yet he has exhibited, as examples, those objects which most generally
deceive us with a fallacious appearance of pleasure; that he might not
leave any thing to concupiscence, after having driven it from those
objects towards which it is most violently inclined. Behold, then, the
second table of the law, which sufficiently instructs us in the duties we
owe to men for the sake of God, on regard to whom the whole rule of love
depends. The duties taught in this second table, therefore, we shall
inculcate in vain, unless our instruction be founded on the fear and
reverence of God. To divide the prohibition of concupiscence into two
precepts, the discerning reader, without any comment of mine, will
pronounce to be a corrupt and violent separation of what is but one. Nor
is the repetition of this phrase, “Thou shalt not covet,” any objection
against us; because, having mentioned the house or family, God enumerates
the different parts of it, beginning with the wife. Hence it clearly
appears that it ought to be read, as it is correctly read by the Hebrews,
in one continued connection; and in short, that God commands, that all
that every man possesses remain safe and entire, not only from any actual
injury or fraudulent intention, but even from the least emotion of
cupidity that can solicit our hearts.

LI. But what is the tendency of the whole law, will not now be difficult
to judge: it is to a perfection of righteousness, that it may form the
life of man after the example of the Divine purity. For God has so
delineated his own character in it, that the man who exemplifies in his
actions the precepts it contains, will exhibit in his life, as it were, an
image of God. Wherefore, when Moses would recall the substance of it to
the remembrance of the Israelites, he said, “And now, Israel, what doth
the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in
all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord?”(897)
Nor did he cease to reiterate the same things to them, whenever he
intended to point out the end of the law. The tendency of the doctrine of
the law is to connect man with his God, and, as Moses elsewhere expresses
it, to make him cleave to the Lord in sanctity of life.(898) Now, the
perfection of this sanctity consists in two principal points, already
recited—“that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all
our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind; and our
neighbour as ourselves.”(899) And the first is, that our souls be
completely filled with the love of God. From this the love of our
neighbour will naturally follow; as the Apostle signifies, when he says,
that “the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a
good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”(900) Here we find a good
conscience and faith unfeigned, that is, in a word, true piety, stated to
be the grand source from which charity is derived. He is deceived,
therefore, who supposes that the law teaches nothing but certain rudiments
and first principles of righteousness, by which men are introduced to the
commencement, but are not directed to the true goal of good works; since
beyond the former sentence of Moses, and the latter of Paul, nothing
further can be wanted to the highest perfection. For how far will he wish
to proceed, who will not be content with this instruction, by which man is
directed to the fear of God, to the spiritual worship of him, to the
observance of his commands, to persevering rectitude in the way of the
Lord, to purity of conscience, and sincere faith and love? Hence we derive
a confirmation of the foregoing exposition of the law, which traces and
finds in its precepts all the duties of piety and love. For they who
attend merely to dry and barren elements, as though it taught them but
half of the Divine will, are declared by the Apostle to have no knowledge
of its end.

LII. But because Christ and his Apostles, in reciting the substance of the
law, sometimes omit the first table,(901) many persons are deceived in
this point, who wish to extend their expressions to both tables. In the
Gospel of Matthew, Christ calls judgment, mercy, and faith, “the weightier
matters of the law.” By the word faith it is evident to me that he intends
truth or fidelity towards men. Some, however, in order to extend the
passage to the whole law, take the word faith to mean religion towards
God. But for this there is no foundation; for Christ is treating of those
works by which man ought to prove himself to be righteous. If we attend to
this observation, we shall cease also to wonder, why, in another place, to
the inquiry of a young man, what those commandments are by the observance
of which we enter into life, he only returns the following answer: “Thou
shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother; and,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”(902) For obedience to the first
table consisted chiefly either in the disposition of the heart, or in
ceremonies. The disposition of the heart was not visible, and the
ceremonies were diligently performed by hypocrites; but the works of
charity are such as enable us to give a certain evidence of righteousness.
But the same occurs in the Prophets so frequently, that it must be
familiar to the reader who is but tolerably conversant with them. For in
almost all cases when they exhort to repentance, they omit the first
table, and insist on faith, judgment, mercy, and equity. Nor do they by
this method neglect the fear of God, but require substantial proof of it
from those marks. It is well known that when they treat of the observation
of the law, they generally insist on the second table; because it is in it
that the love of righteousness and integrity is principally discovered. It
is unnecessary to quote the passages, as every person will of himself
easily remark what I have stated.

LIII. Is it, then, it will be asked, of more importance towards the
attainment of righteousness to live innocently with men, than piously
towards God? By no means. But because no man fulfils all the duties of
charity, unless he really fear God, we derive from those duties a proof of
his piety. Besides, the Lord, well knowing that he can receive no benefit
from us, which he also declares by the Psalmist,(903) requires not our
services for himself, but employs us in good works towards our neighbour.
It is not without reason, then, that the Apostle makes all the perfection
of the saints to consist in love;(904) which in another place he very
justly styles “the fulfilling of the law;” adding, that “he that loveth
another hath fulfilled the law.”(905) Again: that “all the law is
fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.”(906) For he teaches nothing different from what is taught by
Christ himself, when he says, “All things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the
prophets.”(907) It is certain that in the law and the prophets, faith, and
all that pertains to the legitimate worship of God, hold the principal
place, and that love occupies an inferior station; but our Lord intends
that the observance of justice and equity among men is only prescribed to
us in the law, that our pious fear of him, if we really possess any, may
be proved by our actions.

LIV. Here, then, we must rest, that our life will then be governed
according to the will of God, and the prescriptions of his law, when it is
in all respects most beneficial to our brethren. But we do not find in the
whole law one syllable, that lays down any rule for a man respecting those
things which he should practise or omit for his carnal convenience. And
surely, since men are born in such a state, that they are entirely
governed by an immoderate self‐love,—a passion which, how great soever
their departure from the truth, they always retain,—there was no need of a
law which would inflame that love, already of itself too violent. Whence
it plainly appears, that the observance of the commandments consists not
in the love of ourselves, but in the love of God and of our neighbour;
that his is the best and most holy life, who lives as little as possible
to himself; and that no man leads a worse or more iniquitous life, than he
who lives exclusively to himself, and makes his own interest the sole
object of his thoughts and pursuits. Moreover, the Lord, in order to give
us the best expression of the strength of that love which we ought to
exercise towards our neighbours, has regulated it by the standard of our
self‐love, because there was no stronger or more vehement affection. And
the force of the expression must be carefully examined; for he does not,
according to the foolish dreams of some sophists, concede the first place
to self‐love, and assign the second to the love of our neighbour; but
rather transfers to others that affection of love which we naturally
restrict to ourselves. Whence the Apostle asserts that “charity seeketh
not her own.”(908) Nor is their argument, that every thing regulated by
any standard is inferior to the standard by which it is regulated, worthy
of the least attention. For God does not appoint our self‐love as the
rule, to which our love to others should be subordinate; but whereas,
through our natural depravity, our love used to terminate in ourselves, he
shows that it ought now to be diffused abroad; that we may be ready to do
any service to our neighbour with as much alacrity, ardour, and
solicitude, as to ourselves.

LV. Now, since Christ has demonstrated, in the parable of the Samaritan,
that the word “neighbour” comprehends every man, even the greatest
stranger, we have no reason to limit the commandment of love to our own
relations or friends. I do not deny, that the more closely any person is
united to us, the greater claim he has to the assistance of our kind
offices. For the condition of humanity requires, that men should perform
more acts of kindness to each other, in proportion to the closeness of the
bonds by which they are connected, whether of relationship, or
acquaintance, or vicinity; and this without any offence to God, by whose
providence we are constrained to it. But I assert, that the whole human
race, without any exception, should be comprehended in the same affection
of love, and that in this respect there is no difference between the
barbarian and the Grecian, the worthy and unworthy, the friend and the
foe; for they are to be considered in God, and not in themselves, and
whenever we deviate from this view of the subject, it is no wonder if we
fall into many errors. Wherefore, if we wish to adhere to the true law of
love, our eyes must chiefly be directed, not to man, the prospect of whom
would impress us with hatred more frequently than with love, but to God,
who commands that our love to him be diffused among all mankind; so that
this must always be a fundamental maxim with us, that whatever be the
character of a man, yet we ought to love him because we love God.

LVI. Wherefore the schoolmen have discovered either their ignorance or
their wickedness in a most pestilent manner, when, treating of the
precepts prohibiting the desire of revenge, and enjoining the love of our
enemies, which were anciently delivered to all the Jews, and afterwards
equally to all Christians, they have made them to be counsels which we are
at liberty to obey or not to obey, and have confined the necessary
observance of them to the monks, who, on account of this very
circumstance, would be more righteous than plain Christians, because they
voluntarily bound themselves to observe these counsels. The reason which
they assign for not receiving them as laws, is, that they appear too
burdensome and grievous, especially to Christians who are under the law of
grace. Do they presume in this manner to disannul the eternal law of God
respecting the love of our neighbour? Is such a distinction to be found in
any page of the law? On the contrary, does it not abound with commandments
most strictly enjoining the love of our enemies? For what is the meaning
of the injunction to feed our neighbour when he is hungry?(909) to direct
into the right way his oxen or his asses when they are going astray, and
to help them when sinking under a burden?(910) Shall we do good to his
cattle for his sake, and feel no benevolence to his person? What! is not
the word of the Lord eternal? “Vengeance is mine, I will repay:”(911)
which is expressed in another passage still more explicitly: “Thou shalt
not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people.”(912)
Let them either obliterate these passages from the law, or acknowledge
that the Lord was a Legislator, and no longer falsely pretend that he was
only a counsellor.

LVII. And what is the meaning of the following expressions, which they
have presumed to abuse by the absurdity of their comment? “Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may
be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”(913) Here, who would
not argue with Chrysostom, that the allegation of such a necessary cause
clearly proves these to be, not exhortations, but commandments? What have
we left us, after being expunged from the number of the children of God?
But according to them, the monks will be the only sons of the heavenly
Father; they alone will venture to invoke God as their Father. What will
now become of the Church? Upon the same principle it will be confined to
heathen and publicans. For Christ says, “If ye love them which love you,
what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”(914) Shall not
we be in a happy situation, if they leave us the title of Christians, but
deprive us of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven? The argument of
Augustine is equally strong. When the Lord, says he, prohibits adultery,
he forbids you to violate the wife of your enemy no less than of your
friend: when he prohibits theft, he permits you not to steal from any one,
whether he be a friend or an enemy. Now, Paul reduces these two
prohibitions of theft and adultery to the rule of love, and even teaches
that they are “briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself.”(915) Either, then, Paul must have been an
erroneous expositor of the law, or it necessarily follows from this, that
we are commanded to love, not only our friends, but also our enemies.
Those, therefore, who so licentiously shake off the yoke common to the
children of God, evidently betray themselves to be the sons of Satan. It
is doubtful whether they have discovered greater stupidity or impudence in
the publication of this dogma. For all the fathers decidedly pronounce
that these are mere precepts. That no doubt was entertained on the subject
in the time of Gregory, appears from his positive assertions; for he
treats them as precepts, as though it had never been controverted. And how
foolishly do they argue! They would be a burden, say they, too grievous
for Christians; as though truly any thing could be conceived more
difficult, than to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, and
with all our strength. Compared with this law, every thing must be
accounted easy, whether it be to love an enemy, or to banish from the mind
all desire of revenge. To our imbecility, indeed, every thing is arduous
and difficult, even the smallest point in the law. It is the Lord in whom
we find strength: let him give what he commands, and let him command what
he pleases. The being Christians under the law of grace consists not in
unbounded license uncontrolled by any law, but in being ingrafted into
Christ, by whose grace they are delivered from the curse of the law, and
by whose Spirit they have the law inscribed on their hearts. This grace
Paul has figuratively denominated a law, in allusion to the law of God, to
which he was comparing and contrasting it. Their dispute concerning the
word law is a dispute about nothing.

LVIII. Of the same nature is what they have called venial sin—a term which
they apply to secret impiety, which is a breach of the first table, and to
the direct transgression of the last commandment. For this is their
definition, that “it is evil desire without any deliberate assent, and
without any long continuance in the heart.” Now, I assert that evil desire
cannot enter the heart, except through a deficiency of those things which
the law requires. We are forbidden to have any strange gods. When the
mind, assaulted by mistrust, looks around to some other quarter; when it
is stimulated by a sudden desire of transferring its happiness from God to
some other being; whence proceed these emotions, however transient, but
from the existence of some vacant space in the soul to receive such
temptations? And not to protract this argument to greater length, we are
commanded to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all
our soul: therefore, unless all the powers of our soul be intensely
engaged in the love of God, we have already departed from the obedience
required by the law; for that the dominion of God is not well established
in our conscience, is evident, from the enemies that there rebel against
his government, and interrupt the execution of his commands. That the last
commandment properly belongs to this point, has been already demonstrated.
Have we felt any evil desire in our heart? we are already guilty of
concupiscence, and are become at once transgressors of the law; because
the Lord forbids us, not only to plan and attempt any thing that would
prove detrimental to another, but even to be stimulated and agitated with
concupiscence. Now, the curse of God always rests on the transgression of
the law. We have no reason, therefore, to exempt even the most trivial
emotions of concupiscence from the sentence of death. “In determining the
nature of different sins,” says Augustine, “let us not use deceitful
balances, to weigh what we please and how we please, according to our own
humour, saying, This is heavy,—This is light; but let us borrow the Divine
balance from the Holy Scriptures, as from the treasury of the Lord, and
therein weigh what is heavy; or rather let us weigh nothing ourselves, but
acknowledge the weights already determined by the Lord.” And what says the
Scripture? The assertion of Paul, that “the wages of sin is death,”(916)
sufficiently demonstrates this groundless distinction to have been unknown
to him. As we have already too strong a propensity to hypocrisy, this
opiate ought by no means to have been added, to lull our consciences into
greater insensibility.

LIX. I wish these persons would consider the meaning of this declaration
of Christ: “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven.”(917) Are not they of this number, who thus presume to extenuate
the transgression of the law, as though it were not worthy of death? But
they ought to consider, not merely what is commanded, but who it is that
gives the commands; because the smallest transgression of the law, which
he has given, is a derogation from his authority. Is the violation of the
Divine majesty in any case a trivial thing in their estimation? Lastly, if
God has declared his will in the law, whatever is contrary to the law
displeases him. Will they pretend that the wrath of God is so debilitated
and disarmed, that the punishment of death cannot immediately follow? He
has unequivocally declared, if they could induce themselves to listen to
his voice, rather than obscure the plain truth with their frivolous
subtleties, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die;”(918) and, which I have
before cited, “The wages of sin is death.”(919) They acknowledge it to be
sin, because it is impossible to deny it; yet they contend that it is not
_mortal_ sin. But, as they have hitherto too much resigned themselves to
infatuation, they should at length learn to return to the exercise of
their reason. If they persevere in their dreams, we will take our leave of
them. Let the children of God know that all sin is _mortal_; because it is
a rebellion against the will of God, which necessarily provokes his wrath;
because it is a transgression of the law, against which the Divine
judgment is universally denounced; and that the offences of the saints are
_venial_, not of their own nature, but because they obtain pardon through
the mercy of God.

Chapter IX. Christ, Though Known To The Jews Under The Law, Yet Clearly
Revealed Only In The Gospel.

As it was not without reason, or without effect, that God was pleased, in
ancient times, to manifest himself as a Father by means of expiations and
sacrifices, and that he consecrated to himself a chosen people, there is
no doubt that he was known, even then, in the same image in which he now
appears to us with meridian splendour. Therefore Malachi, after having
enjoined the Jews to attend to the law of Moses, and to persevere in the
observance of it, (because after his death there was to be an interruption
of the prophetical office,) immediately announces, that “the Sun of
righteousness shall arise.”(920) In this language he suggests, that the
law tended to excite in the pious an expectation of the Messiah that was
to come, and that at his advent there was reason to hope for a much
greater degree of light. For this reason Peter says that “the Prophets
have inquired and searched diligently concerning the salvation,” which is
now manifested in the gospel; and that “it was revealed to them, that not
unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things which are now
reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you.”(921)
Not that their instructions were useless to the ancient people, or
unprofitable to themselves, but because they did not enjoy the treasure,
which God through their hands has transmitted to us. For in the present
day, the grace, which was the subject of their testimony, is familiarly
exhibited before our eyes; and whereas they had but a small taste, we have
offered to us a more copious fruition of it. Therefore Christ, who asserts
that “Moses wrote of him,”(922) nevertheless extols that measure of grace
in which we excel the Jews. Addressing his disciples, he says, “Blessed
are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.”(923) “For I
tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things
which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye
hear, and have not heard them.”(924) This is no small recommendation of
the evangelical revelation, that God has preferred us to those holy
fathers who were eminent for singular piety. To this declaration that
other passage is not at all repugnant, where Christ says, “Abraham saw my
day, and was glad.”(925) For though his prospect of a thing so very remote
was attended with much obscurity, yet there was nothing wanting to the
certainty of a well founded hope; and hence that joy which accompanied the
holy patriarch even to his death. Neither does this assertion of John the
Baptist, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which
is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,”(926) exclude the
pious, who had died before his time, from a participation of the
understanding and light which shine in the person of Christ; but,
comparing their condition with ours, it teaches us that we have a clear
manifestation of those mysteries, of which they had only an obscure
prospect through the medium of shadows; as the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews more copiously and excellently shows, that “God, who at sundry
times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.”(927)
Therefore, though the only begotten Son, who is now to us “the brightness
of the glory, and the express image of the person,”(928) of God the
Father, was formerly known to the Jews, as we have elsewhere shown by a
quotation from Paul, that he was the leader of their ancient deliverance
from Egypt; yet this also is a truth, which is asserted by the same Paul
in another place, that “God, who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”(929) For when he appeared
in this his image, he made himself visible, as it were, in comparison with
the obscure and shadowy representation of him which had been given before.
This renders the ingratitude and obstinacy of those, who shut their eyes
amid this meridian blaze, so much the more vile and detestable. And
therefore Paul says that Satan, “the god of this world, hath blinded their
minds, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto
them.”(930)

II. Now, I understand the gospel to be a clear manifestation of the
mystery of Christ. I grant indeed, since Paul styles the gospel _the
doctrine of faith_,(931) that whatever promises we find in the law
concerning the gracious remission of sins, by which God reconciles men to
himself, are accounted parts of it. For he opposes faith to those terrors
which torment and harass the conscience, if salvation is to be sought by
works. Whence it follows, that taking the word _gospel_ in a large sense,
it comprehends all those testimonies, which God formerly gave to the
fathers, of his mercy and paternal favour; but it is more eminently
applicable to the promulgation of the grace exhibited in Christ. This
acceptation is not only sanctioned by common use, but supported by the
authority of Christ and the Apostles. Whence it is properly said of him,
that he “preached the gospel of the kingdom.”(932) And Mark introduces
himself with this preface: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
But it is needless to collect more passages to prove a thing sufficiently
known. Christ, then, by his advent, “hath brought life and immortality to
light through the gospel.”(933) By these expressions Paul means, not that
the fathers were immerged in the shades of death, till the Son of God
became incarnate; but, claiming for the gospel this honourable
prerogative, he teaches that it is a new and unusual kind of legation, in
which God has performed those things that he had promised, that the truth
of the promises might appear in the person of his Son. For though the
faithful have always experienced the truth of the assertion of Paul, that
“all the promises of God in him are Yea, and in him Amen,”(934) because
they have been sealed in their hearts, yet, since he has completed in his
body all the parts of our salvation, the lively exhibition of those things
has justly obtained new and singular praise. Hence this declaration of
Christ: “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God
ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”(935) For though he seems to
allude to the ladder which the patriarch Jacob saw in a vision, yet he
displays the superior excellence of his advent by this character—that he
has opened the gate of heaven to give us free admittance into it.

III. Nevertheless, we must beware of the diabolical imagination of
Servetus, who, while he designs to extol the magnitude of the grace of
Christ, or at least professes such a design, totally abolishes all the
promises, as though they were terminated together with the law. He
pretends, that by faith in the gospel we receive the completion of all the
promises; as though there were no distinction between us and Christ. I
have just observed, that Christ left nothing incomplete of all that was
essential to our salvation; but it is not a fair inference, that we
already enjoy the benefits procured by him; for this would contradict the
declaration of Paul, that “hope is laid up for us.”(936) I grant, indeed,
that when we believe in Christ, we at the same time pass from death to
life; but we should also remember the observation of John, that though “we
are now the sons of God, it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we
know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see
him as he is.”(937) Though Christ, therefore, offers us in the gospel a
present plenitude of spiritual blessings, yet the fruition of them is
concealed under the custody of hope, till we are divested of our
corruptible body, and transfigured into the glory of him who has gone
before us. In the mean time, the Holy Spirit commands us to rely on the
promises; and his authority we ought to consider sufficient to silence all
the clamours of Servetus. For according to the testimony of Paul,
“godliness hath promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to
come;”(938) and therefore he boasts of being an Apostle of Christ;
“according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus.”(939) In
another place he apprizes us that we have the same promises which were
given to the saints in former times.(940) Finally, he represents it as the
summit of felicity, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise.(941) Nor, indeed, have we otherwise any enjoyment of Christ, any
further than as we embrace him invested with his promises. Hence it is,
that he dwells in our hearts, and yet we live like pilgrims at a distance
from him; because “we walk by faith, and not by sight.” Nor is there any
contrariety in these two positions, that we possess in Christ all that
belongs to the perfection of the life of heaven, and yet that faith is a
vision of invisible blessings. Only there is a difference to be observed
in the nature or quality of the promises; because the gospel affords a
clear discovery of that which the law has represented in shadows and
types.

IV. This likewise evinces the error of those who never make any other
comparison between the Law and the Gospel, than between the merit of works
and the gratuitous imputation of righteousness. This antithesis, I grant,
is by no means to be rejected; because Paul by the word _law_ frequently
intends the rule of a righteous life, in which God requires of us what we
owe to him, affording us no hope of life, unless we fulfil every part of
it, and, on the contrary, annexing a curse if we are guilty of the
smallest transgression. This is the sense in which he uses it in those
passages, where he argues that we are accepted by God through grace, and
are accounted righteous through his pardon of our sins, because the
observance of the law, to which the reward is promised, is not to be found
in any man. Paul, therefore, justly represents the righteousness of the
law and that of the gospel as opposed to each other. But the gospel has
not succeeded the whole law, so as to introduce a different way of
salvation; but rather to confirm and ratify the promises of the law, and
to connect the body with the shadows. For when Christ says that “the law
and the prophets were until John,” he does not abandon the fathers to the
curse which the slaves of the law cannot escape; he rather implies that
they were only initiated in the rudiments of religion, so that they
remained far below the sublimity of the evangelical doctrine. Wherefore,
when Paul calls the gospel “the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth,” he afterwards adds that it is “witnessed by the law and
the prophets.”(942) But at the end of the same Epistle, although he
asserts that the preaching of Jesus Christ is “the revelation of the
mystery which was kept secret since the world began,” he qualifies this
sentiment with the following explication—that it “is now made manifest,
and by the Scriptures of the prophets made known to all nations.”(943)
Hence we conclude, that when mention is made of the whole law, the gospel
differs from it only with respect to a clear manifestation; but on account
of the inestimable plenitude of grace, which has been displayed to us in
Christ, the celestial kingdom of God is justly said to have been erected
in the earth at his advent.

V. Now, John was placed between the Law and the Gospel, holding an
intermediate office connected with both. For though, in calling Christ
“the Lamb of God” and “the victim for the expiation of sins,”(944) he
preached the substance of the gospel; yet, because he did not clearly
express that incomparable power and glory which afterwards appeared in his
resurrection, Christ affirms that he is not equal to the Apostles. This is
his meaning in the following words: “Among them that are born of women,
there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding, he
that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(945) For he is
not there commending the persons of men, but after having preferred John
to all the prophets, he allots the highest degree of honour to the
preaching of the gospel, which we have elsewhere seen is signified by “the
kingdom of heaven.” When John himself said that he was only a
“voice,”(946) as though he were inferior to the prophets, this declaration
proceeded not from a pretended humility; he meant to signify that he was
not intrusted with a proper embassy, but acted merely in the capacity of a
herald, according to the prediction of Malachi: “Behold, I will send you
Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the
Lord.”(947) Nor indeed, through the whole course of his ministry, did he
aim at any thing but procuring disciples for Christ, which he also proves
from Isaiah to have been the commission given him by God. In this sense he
was called by Christ “a burning and a shining light,”(948) because the
full day had not yet arrived. Yet this is no reason why he should not be
numbered among the preachers of the gospel, as he used the same baptism
which was afterwards delivered to the apostles. But it was not till after
Christ was received into the celestial glory, that the more free and rapid
progress of the apostles completed what John had begun.

Chapter X. The Similarity Of The Old And New Testaments.

From the preceding observations it may now be evident, that all those
persons, from the beginning of the world, whom God has adopted into the
society of his people, have been federally connected with him by the same
law and the same doctrine which are in force among us: but because it is
of no small importance that this point be established, I shall show, by
way of appendix, since the fathers were partakers with us of the same
inheritance, and hoped for the same salvation through the grace of our
common Mediator, how far their condition in this connection was different
from ours. For though the testimonies we have collected from the law and
the prophets in proof of this, render it sufficiently evident that the
people of God have never had any other rule of religion and piety, yet
because some writers have raised many disputes concerning the difference
of the Old and New Testaments, which may occasion doubts in the mind of an
undiscerning reader, we shall assign a particular chapter for the better
and more accurate discussion of this subject. Moreover, what would
otherwise have been very useful, has now been rendered necessary for us by
Servetus and some madmen of the sect of the Anabaptists, who entertain no
other ideas of the Israelitish nation, than of a herd of swine, whom they
pretend to have been pampered by the Lord in this world, without the least
hope of a future immortality in heaven. To defend the pious mind,
therefore, from this pestilent error, and at the same time to remove all
difficulties which may arise from the mention of a diversity between the
Old and New Testaments, let us, as we proceed, examine what similarity
there is between them, and what difference; what covenant the Lord made
with the Israelites, in ancient times, before the advent of Christ, and
what he has entered into with us since his manifestation in the flesh.

II. And, indeed, both these topics may be despatched in one word. The
covenant of all the fathers is so far from differing substantially from
ours, that it is the very same; it only varies in the administration. But
as such extreme brevity would not convey to any man a clear understanding
of the subject, it is necessary, if we would do any good, to proceed to a
more diffuse explication of it. But in showing their similarity, or rather
unity, it will be needless to recapitulate all the particulars which have
already been mentioned, and unseasonable to introduce those things which
remain to be discussed in some other place. We must here insist chiefly on
three principal points. We have to maintain, First, that carnal opulence
and felicity were not proposed to the Jews as the mark towards which they
should ultimately aspire, but that they were adopted to the hope of
immortality, and that the truth of this adoption was certified to them by
oracles, by the law, and by the prophets. Secondly, that the covenant, by
which they were united to the Lord, was founded, not on any merits of
theirs, but on the mere mercy of God who called them. Thirdly, that they
both possessed and knew Christ as the Mediator, by whom they were united
to God, and became partakers of his promises. The second of these points,
as perhaps it is not yet sufficiently known, shall be demonstrated at
large in its proper place. For we shall prove by numerous and explicit
testimonies of the prophets, that whatever blessing the Lord ever gave or
promised to his people, proceeded from his indulgent goodness. The third
point has been clearly demonstrated in several places. And we have not
wholly neglected the first.

III. In discussing the first point, therefore, because it principally
belongs to the present argument, and is the grand subject of their
controversy against us, we will use the more diligent application; yet in
such a manner, that if any thing be wanting to the explication of the
others, it may be supplied as we proceed, or added afterwards in a
suitable place. Indeed, the apostle removes every doubt respecting all
these points, when he says, that God the Father “promised afore by his
prophets in the holy Scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son,”(949)
which he promulgated in the appointed time: and again, that the
righteousness of faith, which is revealed in the gospel, is “witnessed by
the law and the prophets.”(950) For the gospel does not detain men in the
joy of the present life, but elevates them to the hope of immortality;
does not fasten them to terrestrial delights, but announcing to them a
hope reserved in heaven, does as it were transport them thither. For this
is the description which he gives in another place: “In whom also after
that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which
is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased
possession.”(951) Again: “We heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of
the love which ye have to all the saints, for the hope which is laid up
for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the
gospel.”(952) Again: “He called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the
glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”(953) Whence it is called “the word of
salvation,” and “the power of God to the salvation of believers,” and “the
kingdom of heaven.” Now, if the doctrine of the gospel be spiritual, and
open a way to the possession of an immortal life, let us not suppose that
they, to whom it was promised and announced, were totally negligent and
careless of their souls, and stupefied in the pursuit of corporeal
pleasures. Nor let any one here cavil, that the promises which are
recorded in the law and the prophets, respecting the gospel, were not
designed for the Jews. For just after having spoken of the gospel being
promised in the law, he adds, “that what things soever the law saith, it
saith to them who are under the law.”(954) This was in another argument, I
grant; but when he said that whatever the law inculcates truly belonged to
the Jews, he was not so forgetful as not to remember what he had affirmed,
a few verses before, concerning the gospel promised in the law. By
declaring that the Old Testament contained evangelical promises,
therefore, the apostle most clearly demonstrates that it principally
related to a future life.

IV. For the same reason it follows, that it was founded on the free mercy
of God, and confirmed by the mediation of Christ. For even the preaching
of the gospel only announces, that sinners are justified by the paternal
goodness of God, independently of any merit of their own; and the whole
substance of it terminates in Christ. Who, then, dares to represent the
Jews as destitute of Christ,—them with whom we are informed the
evangelical covenant was made, of which Christ is the sole foundation? Who
dares to represent them as strangers to the benefit of a free salvation,
to whom we are informed the doctrine of the righteousness of faith was
communicated? But not to be prolix in disputing on a clear point, we have
a remarkable expression of the Lord: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and
he saw it, and was glad.”(955) And what Christ there declares concerning
Abraham, the apostle shows to have been universal among the faithful, when
he says that Christ remains “the same yesterday, and to‐day, and for
ever.”(956) For he there speaks, not only of the eternal Divinity of
Christ, but of his power, which has been perpetually manifested to the
faithful. Wherefore both the blessed Virgin and Zachariah declare, in
their songs, that the salvation revealed in Christ is a performance of the
promises which the Lord had made to Abraham and the patriarchs.(957) If
the Lord, in the manifestation of Christ, faithfully performed his ancient
oath, it cannot be denied that the end of the Old Testament was always in
Christ and eternal life.

V. Moreover the apostle makes the Israelites equal to us, not only in the
grace of the covenant, but also in the signification of the sacraments.
For when he means to adduce examples of the punishments with which the
Scripture states them to have been formerly chastised, in order to deter
the Corinthians from running into similar crimes, he begins by premising,
that we have no reason to arrogate any preëminence to ourselves, which can
deliver us from the Divine vengeance inflicted on them; since the Lord not
only favoured them with the same benefits, but illustrated his grace among
them by the same symbols;(958) as though he had said, If ye confide in
being beyond the reach of danger, because both baptism by which you have
been sealed, and the supper which you daily receive, have excellent
promises, while at the same time you despise the Divine goodness, and live
licentious lives,—know ye, that the Jews also were not destitute of such
symbols, though the Lord inflicted on them his severest judgments. They
were baptized in their passage through the sea, and in the cloud by which
they were protected from the fervour of the sun. Our opponents maintain
that passage to have been a carnal baptism, corresponding in some degree
to our spiritual one. But if that were admitted, the apostle’s argument
would not proceed; for his design here is to prevent Christians from
supposing that they excel the Jews in the privilege of baptism. Nor is
what immediately follows, that they “did all eat the same spiritual meat,
and did all drink the same spiritual drink,” which he interprets of
Christ, liable to this cavil.

VI. To invalidate this declaration of Paul, they object the assertion of
Christ, “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. If
any man eat of this bread, (that is, my flesh,) he shall live for
ever.”(959) But the two passages are reconciled without any difficulty.
The Lord, because he was addressing auditors who only sought to be
satisfied with corporeal sustenance, but were unconcerned about food for
the soul, accommodates his discourse in some measure to their capacity,
and institutes a comparison between manna and his own body, particularly
to strike their senses. They demand that in order to acquire authority to
himself, he should prove his power by some miracle, such as Moses
performed in the desert, when he obtained manna from heaven. In the manna,
however, they had no idea of any thing but a remedy for corporeal hunger,
with which the people were then afflicted. They did not penetrate to that
sublimer mystery of which Paul treats. Christ, therefore, to demonstrate
the superiority of the blessing they ought to expect from him, to that
which they said their fathers had received from Moses, makes this
comparison: If it be in your opinion a great and memorable miracle, that
the Lord, to prevent his people from perishing in the wilderness, supplied
them, by means of Moses, with heavenly food, which served them as a
temporary sustenance,—hence conclude how much more excellent that food
must be, which communicates immortality. We see, then, why the Lord
omitted the principal thing designed by the manna, and only remarked the
lowest advantage that resulted from it. It was because the Jews, as if
with an intention of reproaching him, contrasted him with Moses, who had
supplied the necessities of the people with manna. He replies, that he is
the dispenser of a far superior favour, in comparison with which the
corporeal sustenance of the people, the sole object of their great
admiration, deserves to be considered as nothing. Knowing that the Lord,
when he rained manna from heaven, not only poured it down for the support
of their bodies, but likewise dispersed it as a spiritual mystery, to
typify that spiritual vivification which is experienced in Christ, Paul
does not neglect that view of the subject which is most deserving of
consideration. Wherefore it is certainly and clearly proved, that the same
promises of an eternal and heavenly life, with which the Lord now favours
us, were not only communicated to the Jews, but even sealed and confirmed
by sacraments truly spiritual. This subject is argued at length by
Augustine against Faustus the Manichæan.

VII. But if the reader would prefer a recital of testimonies from the law
and the prophets, to show him that the spiritual covenant was common also
to the fathers, as we have heard from Christ and his apostles,—I will
attend to this wish, and that with the greater readiness, because our
adversaries will thereby be more decisively confuted, and will have no
pretence for any future cavil. I will begin with that demonstration,
which, though I know the Anabaptists will superciliously deem it futile
and almost ridiculous, yet will have considerable weight with persons of
docility and good understanding. And I take it for granted, that there is
such a vital efficacy in the Divine word as to quicken the souls of all
those whom God favours with a participation of it. For the assertion of
Peter has ever been true, that it is “an incorruptible seed, which abideth
for ever;”(960) as he also concludes from the words of Isaiah.(961) Now,
when God anciently united the Jews with himself in this sacred bond, there
is no doubt that he separated them to the hope of eternal life. For when I
say, that they embraced the word which was to connect them more closely
with God, I advert not to that general species of communication with him,
which is diffused through heaven and earth, and all the creatures in the
universe, which although it animates all things according to their
respective natures, yet does not deliver from the necessity of corruption.
I refer to that particular species of communication, by which the minds of
the pious are enlightened into the knowledge of God, and in some measure
united to him. Since Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs,
were attached to God by such an illumination of his word, I maintain,
there can be no doubt that they had an entrance into his immortal kingdom.
For it was a real participation of God, which cannot be separated from the
blessing of eternal life.

VIII. If the subject still appear involved in any obscurity, let us
proceed to the very form of the covenant; which will not only satisfy
sober minds, but will abundantly prove the ignorance of those who
endeavour to oppose it. For the Lord has always made this covenant with
his servants: “I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.”(962) These
expressions, according to the common explanation of the prophets,
comprehend life, and salvation, and consummate felicity. For it is not
without reason that David frequently pronounces, how “blessed is the
nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his
own inheritance;”(963) and that not on account of any earthly felicity,
but because he delivers from death, perpetually preserves, and attends
with everlasting mercy, those whom he has taken for his people. As it is
expressed in the other prophets, “Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my
God, mine Holy One? we shall not die.”(964) “The Lord is our Lawgiver, the
Lord is our King; he will save us.”(965) “Happy art thou, O Israel: who is
like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord?”(966) But not to labour much
on a point which does not require it, we are frequently reminded, in
reading the prophets, that we shall have a plenitude of all blessings, and
even a certainty of salvation, provided the Lord be our God. And that on
good ground; for if his face, as soon as it has begun to shine, be a
present pledge of salvation, will God manifest himself to any man without
opening the treasures of salvation to him? For God is our God, on the
express condition of his “walking in the midst of us,” as he declared by
Moses.(967) But this presence of his cannot be obtained without the
possession of life. And though nothing further had been expressed, they
had a promise of spiritual life sufficiently clear in these words: “I am
the Lord your God.”(968) For he announced that he would be a God, not only
to their bodies, but chiefly to their souls; for the soul, unless united
to God by righteousness, remains alienated from him at death. But let that
union take place, and it will be attended with eternal salvation.

IX. Moreover, he not only declared himself to be their God, but promised
to continue so for ever; in order that their hope, not contented with
present blessings, might be extended to eternity. And that the use of the
future tense conveyed this idea to them, appears from many expressions,
where the faithful console themselves not only amidst present evils, but
for futurity, that God will never desert them. But in regard to the second
part of the promise, he still more plainly encouraged them concerning the
extension of the Divine blessing to them beyond the limits of the present
life: “I will be a God to thy seed after thee.”(969) For if he intended to
declare his benevolence to them after they were dead, by blessing their
posterity, much more would he not fail of manifesting his favour towards
themselves. For God is not like men, who transfer their love to the
children of their friends, because death takes away their opportunity of
performing kind offices to those who were objects of their regard. But
God, whose beneficence is not interrupted by death, deprives not the dead
of the blessings of his mercy, which for their sakes he diffuses through a
thousand generations. The design of the Lord, therefore, was to show them,
by a clear proof, the magnitude and abundance of his goodness which they
should experience after death, when he described its exuberance as
reaching to all their posterity.(970) Now, the Lord sealed the truth, and,
as it were, exhibited the completion of this promise, when he called
himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, long after they were
dead.(971) For what is implied in it? Would it not have been a ridiculous
appellation, if they had perished? It would have been just as if he had
said, I am the God of those who have no existence. Wherefore, the
evangelists relate, that with this single argument the Sadducees were so
embarrassed by Christ,(972) as to be unable to deny that Moses had given a
testimony in favour of the resurrection of the dead; for they had learned
from Moses himself, that “all his saints are in his hand.”(973) Whence it
was easy to infer, that death had not annihilated those whom he, who is
the arbiter of life and death, had received into his guardianship and
protection.

X. Now, to come to the principal point on which this controversy turns,
let us examine, whether the faithful themselves were not so instructed by
the Lord, as to be sensible that they had a better life in another world,
and to meditate on that to the neglect of the present. In the first place,
the course of life which was divinely enjoined them was a perpetual
exercise, by which they were reminded that they were the most miserable of
all mankind, if they had no happiness but in the present life. Adam,
rendered most unhappy by the mere remembrance of his lost felicity, finds
great difficulty in supplying his wants by anxious toils.(974) Nor does
the Divine malediction confine itself to his manual labours; he
experiences the bitterest sorrow from that which was his only remaining
consolation. Of his two sons, he is deprived of one by the parricidal
hands of his brother; the survivor is deservedly the object of his
detestation and abhorrence.(975) Abel, cruelly assassinated in the flower
of his age, exhibits an example of human calamity. Noah, while the whole
world securely abandons itself to sensual delights, consumes a valuable
part of his life with excessive fatigue in building the ark.(976) His
escape from death was attended with greater distress than if he had died a
hundred times. For besides that the ark was, as it were, a sepulchre to
him for ten months,(977) nothing could be more disagreeable than to be
detained for so long a period almost immersed in the ordure of animals.
After having escaped from such great difficulties, he meets with a fresh
occasion of grief. He sees himself ridiculed by his own son, and is
constrained to pronounce a curse with his own mouth upon him, whom by the
great goodness of God he had received safe from the deluge.(978)

XI. Abraham is one who ought to be deemed equal to a host, if we consider
his faith, which is proposed to us as the best standard of believing, so
that we must be numbered in his family, in order to be the children of
God. Now, what would be more absurd, than that Abraham should be the
father of all the faithful, and not possess even the lowest place among
them? But he cannot be excluded from the number, nor even from the most
honourable station, without the destruction of the whole Church. Now, with
respect to the circumstances of his life;—when he is first called, he is
torn by the Divine command from his country, his parents, and his friends,
the enjoyment of whom is supposed to give life its principal relish; as
though God positively intended to deprive him of all the pleasures of
life.(979) As soon as he has entered the land in which he is commanded to
reside, he is driven from it by a famine. He removes, in search of relief,
to a place where, for the preservation of his own safety, he finds it
necessary to disown his wife, which would probably be more afflictive to
him than many deaths.(980) After having returned to the country of his
residence, he is again expelled from it by famine. What kind of felicity
is it to dwell in such a country, where he must so frequently experience
hunger, and even perish for want of sustenance, unless he leaves it? In
the country of Abimelech, he is again driven to the same necessity of
purchasing his own personal safety with the loss of his wife.(981) While
he wanders hither and thither for many years in an unsettled state, he is
compelled, by the continual quarrels of his servants, to send away his
nephew, whom he regarded as a son.(982) There is no doubt that he bore
this separation just as he would the amputation of one of his limbs. Soon
after he is informed that enemies have carried him away captive.(983)
Whithersoever he directs his course, he finds himself surrounded by savage
barbarians, who will not even permit him to drink the water of wells which
with immense labour he has himself digged. For he could not have bought
the use of them from the king of Gerar, if it had not been previously
prohibited.(984) When he arrives to old age, beyond the time of having
children, he experiences the most disagreeable and painful circumstance
with which that age is attended.(985) He sees himself destitute of
posterity, till, beyond all expectation, he begets Ishmael; whose birth he
purchases at a dear rate, while he is wearied with the reproaches of
Sarah, just as if he encouraged the contumacy of his maid‐servant, and so
were himself the cause of the domestic disturbance.(986) At length Isaac
is born; but his birth is attended with this condition, that Ishmael the
first‐born must be banished from the family, and abandoned like an
enemy.(987) When Isaac is left alone to solace the good man in his
declining years, he is soon after commanded to sacrifice him.(988) What
can the human mind imagine more calamitous, than for a father to become
the executioner of his own son? If he had been taken away by sickness,
every one would have thought the aged parent unhappy in the extreme, as
having had a son given him in mockery, at the loss of whom, his former
grief on account of his being destitute of children would certainly be
redoubled. If he had been massacred by some stranger, the calamity would
have been greatly increased by the horrible nature of his end; but to be
slain by his father’s own hand exceeds all the other instances of
distress. In short, through the whole course of his life, Abraham was so
driven about and afflicted, that if any one wished to give an example of a
life full of calamity, he could not find one more suitable. Nor let it be
objected, that he was not entirely miserable, because he had at length a
prosperous deliverance from such numerous and extreme dangers. For we
cannot pronounce his to be a happy life, who for a long period struggles
through an infinity of difficulties; but his, who is exempted from
afflictions, and favoured with the peaceful enjoyment of present
blessings.

XII. Isaac, though afflicted with fewer calamities, yet scarcely ever
enjoys the smallest taste of pleasure. He also experiences those vexations
which permit not a man to be happy in the world. Famine drives him from
the land of Canaan; his wife is torn from his bosom; his neighbours
frequently harass him, and take every method of distressing him, so that
he also is constrained to contend with them about water.(989) In his own
family he suffers much uneasiness from Esau’s wives;(990) he is distressed
by the discord of his sons, and unable to remedy that great evil, but by
the exile of him to whom he had given the blessing.(991) With respect to
Jacob, he is an eminent example of nothing but extreme infelicity. He
passes his childhood at home, amidst the menaces and terrors of his elder
brother, to which he is at length constrained to give way.(992) A fugitive
from his parents and his native soil, in addition to the bitterness of
exile, he is treated with unkindness by his uncle Laban. It is not
sufficient for him to endure a most hard and severe servitude of seven
years, but he is fraudulently deceived in a wife.(993) For the sake of
another wife he must enter on a new servitude,(994) in which, as he
himself complains, he is scorched all the day by the fervid rays of the
sun, and through the wakeful night benumbed by the icy cold.(995) During
twenty years, which he spends in such extreme hardships, he is daily
afflicted with fresh injuries from his father‐in‐law. Nor does he enjoy
tranquillity in his own family, which he sees distracted and almost torn
asunder by the animosities, contentions, and rivalship of his wives.(996)
When he is commanded to return to his own country, he is obliged to depart
in a manner resembling an ignominious flight. Nor even then can he escape
the iniquity of his father‐in‐law, but is harassed with his reproaches and
insults in the midst of his journey.(997) Immediately after, he falls into
a much greater difficulty. For as he advances towards his brother, he has
death before his eyes in as many forms as a cruel and inveterate enemy can
possibly contrive. He is exceedingly tormented and distracted with
dreadful terrors, while he is expecting the approach of his brother; when
he sees him, he falls at his feet like a person half dead, till he finds
him more reconciled than he could have ventured to hope.(998) Moreover, on
his first entrance into the land, he is deprived of Rachel, his dearly
beloved wife.(999) Afterwards he hears that the son whom he had by her,
and whom, therefore, he loved above the rest, is torn asunder by wild
beasts. The severity of his grief on account of his death is expressed by
himself, when, after many days of mourning, he obstinately refuses all
consolation, saying, “I will go down into the grave unto my son
mourning.”(1000) In the mean time, the rape and violation of his daughter,
and the rashness of his sons in revenging it, which not only made him an
object of abhorrence to all the inhabitants of the country, but put him in
immediate danger of being massacred; what abundant sources were these of
anxiety, grief, and vexation!(1001) Then follows the horrible crime of
Reuben, his first‐born, than which no greater affliction could befall him.
For if the pollution of a man’s wife be numbered among the greatest
miseries, what shall we say of it, when the crime is perpetrated by his
own son?(1002) Not long after, his family is contaminated with
incest;(1003) so that such a number of disgraceful occurrences may be
expected to break a heart otherwise very firm and unbroken by calamities.
Towards the end of life, when he is seeking sustenance for himself and
family in a season of famine, his ears are wounded by the report of a new
calamity, which informs him that one of his sons is detained in prison;
and in order to recover him he is obliged to intrust his darling Benjamin
to the care of the rest.(1004) Who can suppose that in such an
accumulation of distresses he had a single moment of respite? He himself,
who is best able to give a testimony respecting himself, declares to
Pharaoh, that his days on the earth have been few and evil.(1005) By
affirming that he has lived in continual miseries, he denies that he has
enjoyed that prosperity which the Lord had promised him. Therefore either
Jacob formed an improper and ungrateful estimate of the favour of God, or
he spake the truth in asserting that he had been miserable on the earth.
If his affirmation was true, it follows that his hope was not fixed on
terrestrial things.

XIII. If these holy fathers expected, as undoubtedly they did expect, a
life of happiness from the hand of God, they both knew and contemplated a
different kind of blessedness from that of this terrestrial life. This the
apostle very beautifully shows, when he says, “By faith Abraham sojourned
in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles
with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he
looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen
them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them and confessed
that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such
things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly if they had
been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have
had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country,
that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God;
for he hath prepared for them a city.”(1006) For they would have been
stupid beyond all comparison, so steadily to follow promises, of which
there appeared no hope on earth, unless they had expected the completion
of them in another world. But the apostle, with great force, principally
insists on this—that they called the present life a _pilgrimage_, as is
also stated by Moses.(1007) For if they were strangers and sojourners in
the land of Canaan, what became of the Divine promise, by which they had
been appointed heirs of it? This manifestly implies, therefore, that the
promise, which the Lord had given them concerning the possession of it,
related to something more remote. Wherefore they never acquired a foot of
land in Canaan, except for a sepulchre; by which they testified that they
had no hope of enjoying the benefit of the promise till after death. And
this is the reason why Jacob thought it so exceedingly desirable to be
buried there, that he made his son Joseph promise it to him by oath;(1008)
and why Joseph commanded that his bones should be removed thither, even
several ages after his death, when they would have been long reduced to
ashes.(1009)

XIV. In short, it evidently appears, that in all the pursuits of life they
kept in view the blessedness of the future state. For why should Jacob
have so eagerly desired, and exposed himself to such danger in
endeavouring to obtain, the primogeniture, which would occasion his exile,
and almost his rejection from his family, but from which he could derive
no possible benefit, unless he had his views fixed on a nobler blessing?
And that such was his view he declared in these words, which he uttered
with his expiring breath: “I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.”(1010)
What salvation could he expect, when he felt himself about to expire,
unless he had seen in death the commencement of a new life? But why do we
argue concerning the saints and children of God, when even one, who in
other respects endeavoured to oppose the truth, was not entirely destitute
of such a knowledge? For what was the meaning of Balaam, when he said,
“Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like
his,”(1011) but the same which David afterwards expressed in the following
words? “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his
saints.”(1012) “Evil shall slay the wicked.”(1013) If death were the
ultimate bound of human existence, no difference could be observed in it
between the righteous and the impious; the distinction between them
consists in the different destinies which await them after death.

XV. We have not yet proceeded beyond Moses; whose only office, our
opponents allege, was to persuade a carnal people to the worship of God by
the fertility of the land, and an abundance of all things: and yet, unless
any one wilfully rejects the evidence presented to him, we already
discover a clear declaration of a spiritual covenant. But if we come down
to the prophets, there we have the fullest revelation both of eternal life
and of the kingdom of Christ. And first, with what perspicuity and
certainty does David direct all his writings to this end; though, as he
was prior to the rest in point of time, so, according to the order of the
Divine dispensation, he shadowed forth the heavenly mysteries more
obscurely than they did! What estimate he formed of his terrestrial
habitation, the following passage declares: “I am a stranger with thee,
and a sojourner, as all my fathers were. Verily, every man at his best
estate is altogether vanity. Surely every man walketh in a vain show. And
now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee.”(1014) He who, after
having confessed that there is nothing substantial or permanent on earth,
still retains the constancy of his hope in God, certainly contemplates the
felicity reserved for him in another world. To this contemplation he
frequently recalls the faithful, whenever he wishes to afford them true
consolation. For in another place, after having spoken of the brevity and
the transitory nature of human life, he adds, “But the mercy of the Lord
is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him.”(1015) Similar
to which is the following: “Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the
earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but
thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a
vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but thou art
the same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of thy servants
shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.”(1016)
If, notwithstanding the destruction of heaven and earth, the pious cease
not to be established before the Lord, it follows that their salvation is
connected with his eternity. But this hope cannot be at all supported,
unless it rest on the promise which we find in Isaiah: “The heavens,”
saith the Lord, “shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old
like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but
my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be
abolished;”(1017) where perpetuity is ascribed to righteousness and
salvation, considered not as resident in God, but as experienced by men.

XVI. Nor can what he frequently says concerning the prosperity of the
faithful be understood in any other sense than as referring to the
manifestation of the glory of heaven. Such are the following passages:
“The Lord preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of
the hand of the wicked. Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for
the upright in heart.”(1018) Again: “The righteousness of the righteous
endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour. The desire of
the wicked shall perish.”(1019) Again: “Surely the righteous shall give
thanks unto thy name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence.”(1020)
Again: “The righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance.”(1021)
Again: “The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants.”(1022) For the Lord
frequently leaves his servants to the rage of the impious, not only to be
harassed, but to be torn asunder and ruined; he suffers good men to
languish in obscurity and meanness, while the impious are almost as
glorious as the stars; nor does he exhilarate the faithful with the light
of his countenance, so that they can enjoy any lasting pleasure. Wherefore
David does not dissemble that, if the faithful fix their eyes on the
present state of things, they will be most grievously tempted with an
apprehension lest innocence should obtain from God neither favour nor
reward. So much does impiety in most cases prosper and flourish, while the
pious are oppressed with ignominy, poverty, contempt, and distress of
every kind. “My feet,” says he, “were almost gone; my steps had well nigh
slipped. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of
the wicked.”(1023) At length he concludes his account of them: “When I
thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the
sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.”(1024)

XVII. We may learn, then, even from this confession of David, that the
holy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant, that God rarely or
never in this world gives his servants those things which he promises
them, and that, therefore, they elevated their minds to the sanctuary of
God, where they had a treasure in reserve which is not visible amid the
shadows of the present life. This sanctuary was the last judgment, which,
not being discernible by their eyes, they were contented to apprehend by
faith. Relying on this confidence, whatever events might befall them in
the world, they, nevertheless, had no doubt that there would come a time
when the Divine promises would be fulfilled. This is evident from the
following passages: “I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be
satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.”(1025) Again: “I am like a
green olive‐tree in the house of God.”(1026) Again: “The righteous shall
flourish like the palm‐tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those
that be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of
our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat
and flourishing.” He had just before said, “O Lord, how great are thy
works! and thy thoughts are very deep. When the wicked spring as the
grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they
shall be destroyed for ever.”(1027) Where can this beauty and gracefulness
of the faithful be found, but where the appearance of this world has been
reversed by the manifestation of the kingdom of God? When they could turn
their eyes towards that eternity, despising the momentary rigour of
present calamities, they securely broke forth into the following
expressions: “The Lord shall never suffer the righteous to be moved. But
thou, O God, shalt bring them” (wicked men) “down into the pit of
destruction.”(1028) Where, in this world, is the pit of destruction, to
absorb the wicked, as an instance of whose felicity it is mentioned in
another place that without languishing for any long time “they go down to
the grave in a moment?”(1029) Where is that great stability of the saints,
whom David himself, in the language of complaint, frequently represents as
not only troubled, but oppressed and consumed? He certainly had in view,
not any thing that results from the agitations of the world, which are
even more tumultuous than those of the sea, but what will be accomplished
by the Lord, when he shall one day sit in judgment to fix the everlasting
destiny of heaven and earth. This appears from another psalm, in which he
gives the following beautiful description: “They that trust in their
wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of
them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for
him. For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish
person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward thought is,
that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling‐places to
all generations; they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless
man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. This
their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Like
sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the
upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty
shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.”(1030) In the first place,
this derision of fools, for placing their dependence on the mutable and
transitory blessings of the world, shows that the wise ought to seek a
very different felicity. But he more evidently discloses the mystery of
the resurrection, when he establishes the reign of the pious after the
ruin and destruction of the wicked. For what shall we understand by “the
morning” which he mentions, but the revelation of a new life commencing
after the conclusion of the present?

XVIII. Hence arose that reflection, which served the faithful as a
consolation under their miseries, and a remedy for their sufferings: “The
anger of the Lord endureth but a moment; in his favour is life.”(1031) How
did they limit their afflictions to a moment, who were afflicted all their
lifetime? When did they perceive so long a duration of the Divine
goodness, of which they had scarcely the smallest taste? If their views
had been confined to the earth, they could have made no such discovery;
but as they directed their eyes towards heaven, they perceived, that the
afflictions with which the Lord exercises his saints are but “for a small
moment,” and that the “mercies” with which he “gathers” them are
“everlasting.”(1032) On the other hand, they foresaw the eternal and
never‐ending perdition of the impious, who had been happy, as in a dream,
for a single day. Hence the following sentiments: “The memory of the just
is blessed; but the name of the wicked shall rot.”(1033) “Precious in the
sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.”(1034) Also in Samuel: “The
Lord will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in
darkness.”(1035) These expressions suggest to us, that they well knew,
that whatever vicissitudes may befall the saints, yet their last end will
be life and salvation; and that the prosperity of the impious is a
pleasant path, which gradually leads to the gulf of everlasting death.
Therefore they called the death of such the “destruction of the
uncircumcised,”(1036) as of those from whom all hope of resurrection had
been cut off. Wherefore David could not conceive a more grievous
imprecation than this: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living,
and not be written with the righteous.”(1037)

XIX. But the following declaration of Job is remarkable beyond all others:
“I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day
upon the earth; and though after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in
my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall
behold, and not another.”(1038) Some, who wish to display their critical
sagacity, cavil that this is not to be understood of the final
resurrection, but even of the first day on which Job expected God to be
more propitious to him. Though we partly concede this, we shall extort an
acknowledgment from them, whether they are willing or not, that Job could
never have attained to such an enlarged hope, if his thoughts had been
confined to the earth. We must, therefore, be obliged to confess that he,
who saw that his Redeemer would be present with him even when lying in the
sepulchre, must have elevated his views to a future immortality. For to
them, who think only of the present life, death is a source of extreme
despair, which, however, could not annihilate his hope. “Though he slay
me,” said he, “yet will I trust in him.”(1039) Nor let any trifler here
object, that these were the expressions of a few persons, and are far from
furnishing proof that such a doctrine was current among the Jews. I will
immediately reply, that these few persons did not in these declarations
reveal any recondite wisdom, in which only superior understandings were
separately and privately instructed; but that the Holy Spirit having
constituted them teachers of the people, they publicly promulgated the
Divine mysteries which were to be generally received, and to be the
principles of the popular religion. When we hear the public oracles of the
Holy Spirit, therefore, in which he has so clearly and evidently spoken of
the spiritual life in the Jewish church, it would be intolerable
perverseness to apply them entirely to the carnal covenant, in which no
mention is made but of the earth and earthly opulence.

XX. If we descend to the later prophets, there we may freely expatiate as
quite at home. For if it was not difficult to prove our point from David,
Job, and Samuel, we shall do it there with much greater facility. For this
is the order and economy which God observed in dispensing the covenant of
his mercy, that as the course of time accelerated the period of its full
exhibition, he illustrated it from day to day with additional revelations.
Therefore, in the beginning, when the first promise was given to Adam, it
was like the kindling of some feeble sparks. Subsequent accessions caused
a considerable enlargement of the light, which continued to increase more
and more, and diffused its splendour through a wide extent, till at
length, every cloud being dissipated, Christ, the Sun of Righteousness,
completely illuminated the whole world. There is no reason to fear,
therefore, if we want the suffrages of the prophets in support of our
cause, that they will fail us. But as I perceive it would be a very
extensive field, which would engross more of our attention than the nature
of our design will admit,—for it would furnish matter for a large
volume,—and as I also think that by what has been already said, I have
prepared the way even for a reader of small penetration to proceed without
any difficulties, I shall abstain from a prolixity which at present is not
very necessary. I shall only caution the reader to advance with the clew
which we have put into his hand; namely, that whenever the prophets
mention the blessedness of the faithful, scarcely any vestiges of which
are discernible in the present life, he should recur to this distinction;
that in order to the better elucidation of the Divine goodness, the
prophets represented it to the people in a figurative manner; but that
they gave such a representation of it as would withdraw the mind from
earth and time, and the elements of this world, all which must ere long
perish, and would necessarily excite to a contemplation of the felicity of
the future spiritual life.

XXI. We will content ourselves with one example. When the Israelites,
after being carried to Babylon, perceived how very much their dispersion
resembled a death, they could scarcely be convinced that the prophecy of
Ezekiel concerning their restitution(1040) was not a mere fable; for they
considered it in the same light, as if he had announced, that putrid
carcasses would be restored to life. The Lord, in order to show that even
that difficulty would not prevent him from displaying his beneficence,
gave the prophet a vision of a field full of dry bones, which he
instantaneously restored to life and vigour solely by the power of his
word. The vision served indeed to correct the existing incredulity; but at
the same time it reminded the Jews, how far the power of the Lord extended
beyond the restoration of the people, since the mere expression of his
will so easily reanimated the dry and dispersed bones. Wherefore you may
properly compare that passage with another of Isaiah: “Thy dead men shall
live; together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that
dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall
cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut
thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until
the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place
to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also
shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.”(1041)

XXII. It would be absurd, however, to attempt to reduce every passage to
such a canon of interpretation. For there are some places, which show
without any disguise the future immortality which awaits the faithful in
the kingdom of God. Such are some which we have recited, and such are many
others, but particularly these two; one in Isaiah: “As the new heavens and
the new earth which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord,
so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that
from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all
flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth,
and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me;
for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.”(1042)
And another in Daniel: “At that time shall Michael stand up, the great
prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a
time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that
same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that
shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the
dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame
and everlasting contempt.”(1043)

XXIII. Now, the two remaining points, that the fathers had Christ as the
pledge of their covenant, and that they reposed in him all their
confidence of the blessing, being less controvertible and more plain, I
shall take no pains to prove them. We may safely conclude, therefore, what
all the machinations of the devil can never subvert, that the Old
Testament, or covenant which the Lord made with the Israelitish nation,
was not limited to terrestrial things, but contained a promise of
spiritual and eternal life; the expectation of which must have been
impressed on the minds of all who truly consented to the covenant. Then
let us drive far away from us this absurd and pernicious notion, either
that the Lord proposed nothing else to the Jews, or that the Jews sought
nothing else, but an abundance of food, carnal delights, flourishing
wealth, external power, a numerous offspring, and whatever is esteemed
valuable by a natural man. For under the present dispensation, Christ
promises to his people no other kingdom of heaven, than where they may sit
down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;(1044) and Peter asserted the Jews of
his time to be heirs of the grace of the gospel, when he said that “they
were the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with
their fathers.”(1045) And that this might not only be testified in words,
the Lord also proved it by a matter of fact. For on the day in which he
rose from the dead, he honoured many of the saints with a participation of
his resurrection, and caused them to appear in the city;(1046) thus
furnishing a certain assurance that whatever he did and suffered for the
acquisition of eternal salvation, belonged to the faithful of the Old
Testament as much as to us. For, as Peter declares, they also were endued
with the same Spirit, who is the author of our regeneration to life.(1047)
When we are informed that the same Spirit, which is as it were a spark of
immortality in us, and is therefore called in one place “the earnest of
our inheritance,”(1048) dwelt in a similar manner in them, how can we dare
to deprive them of the inheritance of eternal life? It is therefore the
more surprising, that the Sadducees formerly fell into such stupidity as
to deny the resurrection, and the immortality of the soul, since they had
proofs of these points from such clear testimonies of Scripture. And the
folly of the whole nation of the Jews in the present age, in expecting an
earthly kingdom of the Messiah, would be equally extraordinary, had not
the Scriptures long before predicted that they would thus be punished for
their rejection of the gospel. For it was consistent with the righteous
judgment of God to strike with blindness the minds of those, who,
rejecting the light of heaven when presented to them, kept themselves in
voluntary darkness. Therefore they read Moses, and assiduously turn over
his pages, but are prevented by an interposing veil from perceiving the
light which beams in his countenance;(1049) and thus it will remain
covered and concealed to them, till they are converted to Christ, from
whom they now endeavour as much as they can to withdraw and divert it.

Chapter XI. The Difference Of The Two Testaments.

What, then, it will be said, will there be no difference left between the
Old Testament and the New? and what becomes of all those passages of
Scripture, where they are compared together as things that are very
different? I readily admit the differences which are mentioned in the
Scripture, but I maintain that they derogate nothing from the unity
already established; as will be seen when we have discussed them in proper
order. But the principal differences, as far as my observation or memory
extends, are four in number; to which if any one choose to add a fifth, I
shall not make the least objection. I assert, and engage to demonstrate,
that all these are such as pertain rather to the mode of administration,
than to the substance. In this view, they will not prevent the promises of
the Old and New Testament from remaining the same, and the promises of
both Testaments from having in Christ the same foundation. Now, the first
difference is, that although it was always the will of the Lord that the
minds of his people should be directed, and their hearts elevated, towards
the celestial inheritance, yet, in order that they might be the better
encouraged to hope for it, he anciently exhibited it for their
contemplation and partial enjoyment under the figures of terrestrial
blessings. Now, having by the gospel more clearly and explicitly revealed
the grace of the future life, he leaves the inferior mode of instruction
which he used with the Israelites, and directs our minds to the immediate
contemplation of it. Those who overlook this design of God, suppose that
the ancients ascended no higher than the corporeal blessings which were
promised them; they so frequently hear the land of Canaan mentioned as the
eminent, and indeed the only, reward for the observers of the Divine law.
They hear that God threatens the transgressors of this law with nothing
more severe than being expelled from the possession of that country, and
dispersed into foreign lands. They see this to be nearly the whole
substance of all the blessings and of all the curses pronounced by Moses.
Hence they confidently conclude, that the Jews were separated from other
nations, not for their own sakes, but for ours, that the Christian Church
might have an image, in whose external form they could discern examples of
spiritual things. But since the Scripture frequently shows, that God
himself appointed the terrestrial advantages with which he favoured them
for the express purpose of leading them to the hope of celestial
blessings, it argued extreme inexperience, not to say stupidity, not to
consider such a dispensation. The point of controversy between us and
these persons, is this: they maintain that the possession of the land of
Canaan was accounted by the Israelites their supreme and ultimate
blessedness, but that to us, since the revelation of Christ, it is a
figure of the heavenly inheritance. We, on the contrary, contend, that in
the earthly possession which they enjoyed, they contemplated, as in a
mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be prepared for them
in heaven.

II. This will more fully appear from the similitude which Paul has used in
his Epistle to the Galatians.(1050) He compares the Jewish nation to a
young heir, who, being yet incapable of governing himself, follows the
dictates of a tutor or a governor, to whose charge he has been committed.
His application of this similitude chiefly to the ceremonies, is no
objection against the propriety of its application to our present purpose.
The same inheritance was destined for them as for us; but they were not of
a sufficient age to be capable of entering on the possession and
management of it. The Church among them was the same as among us; but it
was yet in a state of childhood. Therefore the Lord kept them under this
tuition, that he might give them the spiritual promises, not open and
unconcealed, but veiled under terrestrial figures. Therefore, when he
admitted Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their posterity, to the hope of
immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan as their inheritance; not
that their hopes might terminate in that land, but that in the prospect of
it they might exercise and confirm themselves in the hope of that true
inheritance which was not yet visible. And that they might not be
deceived, a superior promise was given them, which proved that country not
to be the highest blessing which God would bestow. Thus Abraham is not
permitted to grow indolent after having received a promise of the land,
but a greater promise elevates his mind to the Lord. For he hears him
saying, “Abram, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”(1051)
Here we see that the Lord proposes himself to Abraham as his ultimate
reward, that he may not seek an uncertain and transitory one in the
elements of this world, but may consider that which can never fade away.
God afterwards annexes a promise of the land, merely as a symbol of his
benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance. And that this was the
opinion of the saints, is plain from their own language. Thus David rises
from temporary blessings to that consummate and ultimate felicity. “My
soul longeth, yea, even fainteth, for the courts of the Lord.”(1052) “God
is my portion for ever.”(1053) Again: “The Lord is the portion of mine
inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.”(1054) Again: “I cried
unto thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land
of the living.”(1055) Persons who venture to express themselves thus,
certainly profess that in their hopes they rise above the world and all
present blessings. Nevertheless the prophets frequently describe this
blessedness of the future world under the type which the Lord had given
them. In this sense we must understand the following passages: “The
righteous shall inherit the land;”(1056) “But the wicked shall be cut off
from the earth;”(1057) and various predictions of Isaiah, which foretell
the future prosperity of Jerusalem, and the abundance that will be enjoyed
in Zion. We see that all these things are inapplicable to the land of our
pilgrimage, or to the earthly Jerusalem, but that they belong to the true
country of the faithful, and to that celestial city, where “the Lord
commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.”(1058)

III. This is the reason why the saints, under the Old Testament, are
represented as holding this mortal life with its blessings in higher
estimation than becomes us now. For although they well knew that they
ought not to rest in it as the end of their course, yet when they
recollected what characters of his grace the Lord had impressed on it, in
order to instruct them in a manner suitable to their tender state, they
felt a greater degree of pleasure in it than if they had considered it
merely in itself. But as the Lord, in declaring his benevolence to the
faithful by present blessings, gave them, under these types and symbols, a
figurative exhibition of spiritual felicity, so, on the other hand, in
corporal punishments he exemplified his judgment against the reprobate.
Therefore, as the favours of God were more conspicuous in earthly things,
so also were his punishments. Injudicious persons, not considering this
analogy and harmony (so to speak) between the punishments and rewards,
wonder at so great a variety in God, that in ancient times he was ready to
avenge all the transgressions of men by the immediate infliction of severe
and dreadful punishments, but now, as if he had laid aside his ancient
wrath, punishes with far less severity and frequency; and on this account
they almost adopt the notion of the Manichæans, that the God of the Old
Testament is a different being from the God of the New. But we shall
easily get rid of such difficulties, if we direct our attention to that
dispensation of God, which I have observed; namely, that during that
period, in which he gave the Israelites his covenant involved in some
degree of obscurity, he intended to signify and prefigure the grace of
future and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, and the grievousness
of spiritual death by corporal punishments.

IV. Another difference between the Old Testament and the New consists in
figures, because the former, in the absence of the truth, displayed merely
an image and shadow instead of the body; but the latter exhibits the
present truth and the substantial body.(1059) And this is generally
mentioned wherever the New Testament is opposed to the Old, but is treated
more at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any other place.(1060)
The apostle is there disputing against those who supposed that the
observance of the Mosaic law could not be abolished, without being
followed by the total ruin of religion. To refute this error, he adduces
the prediction of the psalmist concerning the priesthood of Christ;(1061)
for since he has an eternal priesthood committed to him, we may argue the
certain abolition of that priesthood, in which new priests daily succeeded
each other.(1062) But he proves the superiority of the appointment of this
new Priest, because it is confirmed with an oath.(1063) He afterwards adds
that this transfer of the priesthood implies also a change of the
covenant.(1064) And he proves that this change was necessary, because such
was the imbecility of the law, that it could bring nothing to
perfection.(1065) Then he proceeds to state the nature of this imbecility;
namely, that the law prescribed external righteousnesses, consisting in
carnal ordinances, which could not make the observers of them “perfect as
pertaining to the conscience,” that by animal victims it could neither
expiate sins nor procure true holiness.(1066) He concludes, therefore,
that it contained “a shadow of good things to come, but not the very image
of the things;”(1067) and that consequently it had no other office, but to
serve as an introduction to “a better hope,”(1068) which is exhibited in
the gospel. Here we have to inquire in what respect the Legal covenant is
compared with the Evangelical, the ministry of Christ with the ministry of
Moses. For if the comparison related to the substance of the promises,
there would be a great discordance between the two testaments; but as the
state of the question leads us to a different point, we must attend to the
scope of the apostle, in order to discover the truth. Let us, then, bring
forward the covenant, which God has once made, which is eternal, and never
to be abolished. The accomplishment, whence it derives its establishment
and ratification, is Christ. While such a confirmation was waited for, the
Lord by Moses prescribed ceremonies, to serve as solemn symbols of the
confirmation. It came to be a subject of contention, whether the
ceremonies ordained in the law ought to cease and give place to Christ.
Now, though these ceremonies were only accidents or concomitants of the
covenant, yet being the instruments of its administration, they bear the
name of the covenant; as it is common to give to other sacraments the
names of the things they represent. In a word, therefore, what is here
called the Old Testament is a solemn method of confirming the covenant,
consisting of ceremonies and sacrifices. Since it contains nothing
substantial, unless we proceed further, the apostle contends that it ought
to be repealed and abrogated, in order to make way for Christ, the Surety
and Mediator of a better testament,(1069) by whom eternal sanctification
has been at once procured for the elect, and those transgressions
obliterated, which remained under the law. Or, if you prefer it, take the
following statement of it; that the Old Testament of the Lord was that
which was delivered to the Jews, involved in a shadowy and inefficacious
observance of ceremonies, and that it was therefore temporary, because it
remained as it were in suspense, till it was supported by a firm and
substantial confirmation; but that it was made new and eternal, when it
was consecrated and established by the blood of Christ. Whence Christ
calls the cup which he gives to his disciples in the supper, “the cup of
the New Testament in his blood;”(1070) to signify that when the testament
of God is sealed with his blood, the truth of it is then accomplished, and
thus it is made new and eternal.

V. Hence it appears in what sense the apostle said, that the Jews were
conducted to Christ by the tuition of the law, before he was manifested in
the flesh.(1071) He confesses also that they were children and heirs of
God, but such as, on account of their age, required to be kept under the
care of a tutor.(1072) For it was reasonable that before the Sun of
Righteousness was risen, there should be neither such a full blaze of
revelation, nor such great clearness of understanding. Therefore the Lord
dispensed the light of his word to them in such a manner, that they had
yet only a distant and obscure prospect of it. Paul describes this
slenderness of understanding as a state of childhood, which it was the
Lord’s will to exercise in the elements of this world and in external
observances, as rules of puerile discipline, till the manifestation of
Christ, by whom the knowledge of the faithful was to grow to maturity.
Christ himself alluded to this distinction, when he said, “The law and the
prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is
preached.”(1073) What discoveries did Moses and the prophets make to their
contemporaries? They afforded them some taste of that wisdom which was in
after times to be clearly manifested, and gave them a distant prospect of
its future splendour. But when Christ could be plainly pointed out, the
kingdom of God was revealed. For in him are discovered “all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge,”(1074) by which we penetrate almost into the
furthest recesses of heaven.

VI. Nor is it any objection to our argument, that scarcely a person can be
found in the Christian Church, who is to be compared with Abraham in the
excellency of his faith; or that the prophets were distinguished by such
energy of the Spirit as, even at this day, is sufficient to illuminate the
whole world. For our present inquiry is, not what grace the Lord has
conferred on a few, but what is the ordinary method which he has pursued
in the instruction of his people; such as is found even among the prophets
themselves, who were endued with peculiar knowledge above others. For
their preaching is obscure, as relating to things very distant, and is
comprehended in types. Besides, notwithstanding their wonderful eminence
in knowledge, yet because they were under a necessity of submitting to the
same tuition as the rest of the people, they are considered as sustaining
the character of children as well as others. Finally, none of them
possessed knowledge so clear as not to partake more or less of the
obscurity of the age. Whence this observation of Christ: “Many prophets
and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen
them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard
them.”(1075) “Blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they
hear.”(1076) And, indeed, it is reasonable that the presence of Christ
should be distinguished by the prerogative of introducing a clearer
revelation of the mysteries of heaven. To the same purpose also is the
passage, which we have before cited from the First Epistle of Peter, that
it was revealed to them, that the principal advantage of their labours
would be experienced in our times.(1077)

VII. I come now to the third difference, which is taken from Jeremiah,
whose words are these: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;
not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day
that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which
my covenant they brake, although I was a husband to them, saith the Lord;
but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.
After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my
people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every
man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from
the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will
forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”(1078) From
this passage the apostle took occasion to institute the following
comparison between the law and the gospel: he calls the former a literal,
the latter a spiritual doctrine; the former, he says, was engraven on
tables of stone, but the latter is inscribed on the heart;(1079) the
former was the preaching of death, but the latter of life; the former was
the ministration of condemnation, but the latter of righteousness; the
former is abolished, but the latter remains. As the design of the apostle
was to express the sense of the prophet, it will be sufficient for us to
consider the language of one of them, in order to discover the meaning of
both. There is, however, some difference between them. For the apostle
speaks of the law in less honourable terms than the prophet does; and that
not simply with respect to the law itself, but, because there were some
disturbers, who were full of improper zeal for the law, and by their
perverse attachment to the ceremonies obscured the glory of the gospel, he
disputes concerning the nature of the law with reference to their error
and foolish affection for it. This peculiarity in Paul, therefore, will be
worthy of our observation. Both of them, as they contrast the Old and New
Testaments with each other, consider nothing in the law, but what properly
belongs to it. For example, the law contains frequent promises of mercy;
but as they are borrowed from another dispensation, they are not
considered as part of the law, when the mere nature of the law is the
subject of discussion. All that they attribute to it is, that it enjoins
what is right, and prohibits crimes; that it proclaims a reward for the
followers of righteousness, and denounces punishments against
transgressors; but that it neither changes nor corrects the depravity of
heart which is natural to all men.

VIII. Now, let us explain the comparison of the apostle in all its
branches. In the first place, the Old Testament is literal, because it was
promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit; the New is spiritual,
because the Lord has engraven it in a spiritual manner on the hearts of
men. The second contrast, therefore, serves as an elucidation of the
first. The Old Testament is the revelation of death, because it can only
involve all mankind in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because
it delivers us from the curse, and restores us to favour with God. The
former is the ministry of condemnation, because it convicts all the
children of Adam of unrighteousness; the latter is the ministry of
righteousness, because it reveals the mercy of God, by which we are made
righteous. The last contrast must be referred to the legal ceremonies. The
law having an image of things that were at a distance, it was necessary
that in time it should be abolished and disappear. The gospel, exhibiting
the body itself, retains a firm and perpetual stability. Jeremiah calls
even the moral law a weak and frail covenant, but for another reason;
namely, because it was soon broken by the sudden defection of an
ungrateful people. But as such a violation arises from the fault of the
people, it cannot be properly attributed to the Testament. The ceremonies,
however, which at the advent of Christ were abolished by their own
weakness, contained in themselves the cause of their abrogation. Now, this
difference between the “letter” and the “spirit” is not to be understood
as if the Lord had given his law to the Jews without any beneficial
result, without one of them being converted to him; but it is used in a
way of comparison, to display the plenitude of grace with which the same
Legislator, assuming as it were a new character, has honoured the
preaching of the gospel. For if we survey the multitude of those, from
among all nations, whom, by the influence of his Spirit in the preaching
of the gospel, the Lord has regenerated and gathered into communion with
his Church, we shall say that those of the ancient Israelites, who
cordially and sincerely embraced the covenant of the Lord, were extremely
few; though, if estimated by themselves without any comparison, they
amounted to a considerable number.

IX. The fourth difference arises out of the third. For the Scripture calls
the Old Testament a covenant of bondage, because it produces fear in the
mind; but the New it describes as a covenant of liberty, because it leads
the heart to confidence and security. Thus Paul, in the eighth chapter of
his Epistle to the Romans, says, “Ye have not received the spirit of
bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”(1080) To the same purpose is that passage
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the faithful now “are not come unto
the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto
blackness, and darkness, and tempest,” where nothing can be either heard
or seen, but what must strike terror into the mind; so that even Moses
himself is exceedingly afraid at the sound of the terrible voice, which
they all pray that they may hear no more; but that now the faithful “are
come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem,”(1081) &c. What Paul briefly touches in the passage which we
have adduced from the Epistle to the Romans, he explains more at large in
his Epistle to the Galatians, when he allegorizes the two sons of Abraham
in the following manner—that Agar, the bond‐woman, is a type of mount
Sinai, where the people of Israel received the law; that Sarah, the free‐
woman, is a figure of the celestial Jerusalem, whence proceeds the gospel.
That as the son of Agar is born in bondage, and can never attain to the
inheritance, and the son of Sarah is born free, and has a right to the
inheritance,(1082) so by the law we were devoted to slavery, but by the
gospel alone are regenerated to liberty. Now, the whole may be summed up
thus—that the Old Testament filled men’s consciences with fear and
trembling; but that by the benefit of the New Testament, they are
delivered, and enabled to rejoice. The former kept their consciences under
a yoke of severe bondage; but by the liberality of the latter they are
emancipated and admitted to liberty. If any one object to us the case of
the holy fathers of the Israelitish people, that as they were clearly
possessed of the same spirit of faith as we are, they must consequently
have been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we reply, that neither of
these originated from the law; but that, when they felt themselves, by
means of the law, oppressed with their servile condition, and wearied with
disquietude of conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel; and that
therefore it was a peculiar advantage of the New Testament, that they
enjoyed an exception from the common law of the Old Testament, and were
exempted from those evils. Besides, we shall deny that they were favoured
with the spirit of liberty and security, to such a degree as not to
experience from the law some measure both of fear and of servitude. For
notwithstanding their enjoyment of that privilege, which they obtained by
the grace of the gospel, yet they were subject to the same observances and
burdens as the people in general. As they were obliged, therefore, to a
diligent observance of these ceremonies, which were emblems of the state
of pupilage similar to bondage, and the hand‐writing, by which they
confessed themselves guilty of sin, did not release them from the
obligation, they may justly be said, in comparison with us, to have been
under a testament of bondage and fear, when we consider the common mode of
procedure which the Lord then pursued with the Israelitish nation.

X. The three last comparisons which we have mentioned are between the law
and the gospel. In these, therefore, “the Old Testament” denotes _the
law_; and “the New Testament,” _the gospel_. The first comparison extends
further, for it comprehends also the promises, which were given before the
law. When Augustine denied that they ought to be considered as part of the
Old Testament, he gave a very proper opinion, and intended the same that
we now teach; for he had in view those passages of Jeremiah and Paul, in
which the Old Testament is distinguished from the word of grace and mercy.
He very judiciously adds also in the same place, that the children of the
promise, from the beginning of the world, who have been regenerated by
God, and, under the influence of faith working by love, have obeyed his
commands, belong to the New Testament; and _that_, in hope, not of carnal,
terrestrial, and temporal things, but of spiritual, celestial, and eternal
blessings; especially believing in the Mediator, through whom they doubted
not that the Spirit was dispensed to them to enable them to do their duty,
and that whenever they sinned they were pardoned. For this is the very
same thing which I meant to assert: That all the saints, whom, from the
beginning of the world, the Scripture mentions as having been peculiarly
chosen by God, have been partakers of the same blessing with us to eternal
salvation. Between our distinction and that of Augustine there is this
difference—that ours (according to this declaration of Christ, “the law
and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is
preached;”)(1083) distinguishes between the clearness of the gospel and
the more obscure dispensation of the word which preceded it; whilst the
other merely discriminates the weakness of the law from the stability of
the gospel. Here it must also be remarked concerning the holy fathers,
that though they lived under the Old Testament, they did not rest
satisfied with it, but always aspired after the New, and thus enjoyed a
certain participation of it. For all those who contented themselves with
present shadows, and did not extend their views to Christ, are condemned
by the apostle as blind and under the curse. For, to say nothing on other
points, what greater ignorance can be imagined than to hope for an
expiation of sin by the sacrifice of an animal? than to seek for the
purification of the soul by an external ablution with water? than to wish
to appease God with frigid ceremonies, as though they afforded him great
pleasure? For all these absurdities are chargeable on those who adhere to
the observances of the law, without any reference to Christ.

XI. The fifth difference, which we may add, consists in this—that till the
advent of Christ, the Lord selected one nation, to which he would limit
the covenant of his grace. Moses says, “When the Most High divided to the
nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,—the Lord’s
portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”(1084) In
another place he thus addresses the people: “Behold, the heaven, and the
heaven of heavens is the Lord’s thy God, the earth also, with all that
therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and
he chose their seed after them, even you above all people.”(1085)
Therefore he favoured that people with the exclusive knowledge of his
name, as though they alone of all mankind belonged to him; he deposited
his covenant as it were in their bosom; to them he manifested the presence
of his power; he honoured them with every privilege. But to omit the rest
of his benefits, the only one that relates to our present argument is,
that he united them to himself by the communication of his word, in order
that he might be denominated and esteemed their God. In the mean time he
suffered other nations, as though they had no business or intercourse with
him, to walk in vanity;(1086) nor did he employ means to prevent their
destruction by sending them the only remedy—the preaching of his word. The
Israelitish nation, therefore, were then as darling sons; others were
strangers: they were known to him, and received under his faithful
protection; others were left to their own darkness: they were sanctified
by God; others were profane: they were honoured with the Divine presence;
others were excluded from approaching it. But when the fulness of the time
was come,(1087) appointed for the restoration of all things,(1088) and the
Reconciler of God and men was manifested,(1089) the barrier was
demolished, which had so long confined the Divine mercy within the limits
of the Jewish church, and peace was announced to them who were at a
distance, and to them who were near, that being both reconciled to God,
they might coalesce into one people. Wherefore “there is neither Greek nor
Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, but Christ is all and in all;”(1090)
“to whom the heathen are given for his inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for his possession;”(1091) that he may have a universal
“dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the
earth.”(1092)

XII. The vocation of the Gentiles, therefore, is an eminent illustration
of the superior excellence of the New Testament above the Old. It had,
indeed, before been most explicitly announced in numerous predictions of
the prophets; but so as that the completion of it was deferred to the
kingdom of the Messiah. And even Christ himself made no advances towards
it at the first commencement of his preaching, but deferred it till he
should have completed all the parts of our redemption, finished the time
of his humiliation, and received from the Father “a name which is above
every name, before which every knee shall bow.”(1093) Wherefore, when this
season was not yet arrived, he said to a Canaanitish woman, “I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel:”(1094) nor did he permit
the apostles, in his first mission of them, to exceed these limits. “Go
not,” says he, “into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.”(1095) And though this calling of the Gentiles was announced by so
many testimonies, yet when the apostles were about to enter upon it, it
appeared to them so novel and strange, that they dreaded it, as if it had
been a prodigy: indeed it was with trepidation and reluctance that they at
length engaged in it. Nor is this surprising; for it seemed not at all
reasonable, that the Lord, who for so many ages had separated the
Israelites from the rest of the nations, should, as it were, suddenly
change his design, and annihilate this distinction. It had indeed been
predicted in the prophecies; but they could not pay such great attention
to the prophecies, as to be wholly unmoved with the novelty of the
circumstance, which forced itself on their observation. Nor were the
specimens, which the Lord had formerly given, of the future vocation of
the Gentiles, sufficient to influence them. For besides his having called
only very few of them, he had even incorporated them into the family of
Abraham, that they might be added to his people; but by that public
vocation, the Gentiles were not only raised to an equality with the Jews,
but appeared to succeed to their places as though they had been dead.
Besides, of all the strangers whom God had before incorporated into the
Church, none were ever placed on an equality with the Jews. Therefore it
is not without reason that Paul so celebrates this “mystery which was
hidden from ages and from generations,”(1096) and which he represents as
an object of admiration even to angels.(1097)

XIII. In these four or five points, I think I have given a correct and
faithful statement of the whole of the difference between the Old and the
New Testament, as far as is sufficient for a simple system of doctrine.
But because some persons represent this variety in the government of the
Church, these different modes of instruction, and such a considerable
alteration of rites and ceremonies, as a great absurdity, we must reply to
them, before we proceed to other subjects. And this may be done in a brief
manner, since the objections are not so strong as to require a laborious
refutation. It is not reasonable, they say, that God, who is perpetually
consistent with himself, should undergo so great a change as afterwards to
disallow what he had once enjoined and commanded. I reply, that God ought
not therefore to be deemed mutable, because he has accommodated different
forms to different ages, as he knew would be suitable for each. If the
husbandman prescribes different employments to his family in the winter,
from those which he allots them in the summer, we must not therefore
accuse him of inconstancy, or impute to him a deviation from the proper
rules of agriculture, which are connected with the perpetual course of
nature. Thus, also, if a father instructs, governs, and manages his
children one way in infancy, another in childhood, and another in youth,
we must not therefore charge him with being inconstant, or forsaking his
own designs. Why, then, do we stigmatize God with the character of
inconstancy, because he has made an apt and suitable distinction between
different times? The last similitude ought fully to satisfy us. Paul
compares the Jews to children, and Christians to youths.(1098) What
impropriety is there in this part of the government of God, that he
detained them in the rudiments which were suitable to them on account of
their age, but has placed us under a stronger and more manly discipline?
It is a proof, therefore, of the constancy of God, that he has delivered
the same doctrine in all ages, and perseveres in requiring the same
worship of his name which he commanded from the beginning. By changing the
external form and mode, he has discovered no mutability in himself, but
has so far accommodated himself to the capacity of men, which is various
and mutable.

XIV. But they inquire whence this diversity proceeded, except from the
will of God. Could he not, as well from the beginning as since the advent
of Christ, give a revelation of eternal life in clear language without any
figures, instruct his people by a few plain sacraments, bestow his Holy
Spirit, and diffuse his grace through all the world? This is just the same
as if they were to quarrel with God, because he created the world at so
late a period, whereas he might have done it before; or because he has
appointed the alternate vicissitudes of summer and winter, of day and
night. But let us not doubt what ought to be believed by all pious men,
that whatever is done by God is done wisely and righteously; although we
frequently know nothing of the causes which render such transactions
necessary. For it would be arrogating too much to ourselves, not to permit
God to keep the reasons of his decrees concealed from us. But it is
surprising, say they, that he now rejects and abominates the sacrifices of
cattle, and all the apparatus of the Levitical priesthood, with which he
used to be delighted; as though truly these external and transitory things
could afford pleasure to God, or affect him in any way whatever. It has
already been observed, that he did none of these things on his own
account, but appointed them all for the salvation of men. If a physician
cure a young man of any disease by a very excellent method, and afterwards
adopt a different mode of cure with the same person when advanced in
years, shall we therefore say that he rejects the method of cure which he
before approved? We will rather say, that he perseveres in the same
system, and considers the difference of age. Thus it was necessary, before
the appearance of Christ, that he should be prefigured, and his future
advent announced by one kind of emblems; since he has been manifested, it
is right that he should be represented by others. But with respect to the
Divine vocation, now more widely extended among all nations since the
advent of Christ than it was before, and with regard to the more copious
effusion of the graces of the Spirit, who can deny, that it is reasonable
and just for God to retain under his own power and will the free
dispensation of his favours; that he may illuminate what nations he
pleases; that wherever he pleases he may introduce the preaching of his
word; that he may give to his instruction whatever kind and degree of
profit and success he pleases; that wherever he pleases, in any age, he
may punish the ingratitude of the world by depriving them of the knowledge
of his name, and when he pleases restore it on account of his mercy? We
see, therefore, the absurdity of the cavils with which impious men disturb
the minds of the simple on this subject, to call in question either the
righteousness of God or the truth of the Scripture.

Chapter XII. The Necessity Of Christ Becoming Man In Order To Fulfil The
Office Of Mediator.

It was of great importance to our interests, that he, who was to be our
Mediator, should be both true God and true man. If an inquiry be made
concerning the necessity of this, it was not indeed a simple, or, as we
commonly say, an absolute necessity, but such as arose from the heavenly
decree, on which the salvation of men depended. But our most merciful
Father has appointed that which was best for us. For since our iniquities,
like a cloud intervening between us and him, had entirely alienated us
from the kingdom of heaven, no one that could not approach to God could be
a mediator for the restoration of peace. But who could have approached to
him? Could any one of the children of Adam? They, with their parent, all
dreaded the Divine presence. Could any one of the angels? They also stood
in need of a head, by a connection with whom they might be confirmed in a
perfect and unvarying adherence to their God. What, then, could be done?
Our situation was truly deplorable, unless the Divine majesty itself would
descend to us; for we could not ascend to it. Thus it was necessary that
the Son of God should become Immanuel, that is, God with us; and this in
order that there might be a mutual union and coalition between his
Divinity and the nature of man; for otherwise the proximity could not be
sufficiently near, nor could the affinity be sufficiently strong, to
authorize us to hope that God would dwell with us. So great was the
discordance between our pollution and the perfect purity of God. Although
man had remained immaculately innocent, yet his condition would have been
too mean for him to approach to God without a Mediator. What, then, can he
do, after having been plunged by his fatal fall into death and hell,
defiled with so many blemishes, putrefying in his own corruption, and, in
a word, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without reason, therefore,
that Paul, when about to exhibit Christ in the character of a Mediator,
expressly speaks of him as a man. “There is one Mediator,” he says,
“between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.”(1099) He might have called
him God, or might indeed have omitted the appellation of man, as well as
that of God; but because the Spirit, who spake by him, knew our infirmity,
he has provided a very suitable remedy against it, by placing the Son of
God familiarly among us, as though he were one of us. Therefore, that no
one may distress himself where he is to seek the Mediator, or in what way
he may approach him, the apostle, by denominating him a man, apprizes us
that he is near, and even close to us, since he is our own flesh. He
certainly intends the same as is stated in another place more at
large—“that we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin.”(1100)

II. This will still more fully appear, if we consider, that it was no mean
part which the Mediator had to perform; namely, to restore us to the
Divine favour, so as, of children of men, to make us children of God; of
heirs of hell, to make us heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Who could
accomplish this, unless the Son of God should become also the Son of man,
and thus receive to himself what belongs to us, and transfer to us that
which is his, and make that which is his by nature ours by grace?
Depending, therefore, on this pledge, we have confidence that we are the
children from God, because he, who is the Son of God by nature, has
provided himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from
our bones,(1101) that he might be the same with us: he refused not to
assume that which was peculiar to us, that we also might obtain that which
he had peculiar to him; and that so in common with us he might be both the
Son of God and the Son of man. Hence arises that holy fraternity, which he
mentions with his own mouth in the following words: “I ascend unto my
Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”(1102) On this
account we have a certainty of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven,
because the only Son of God, to whom it exclusively belonged, has adopted
us as his brethren; and if we are his brethren, we are consequently co‐
heirs to the inheritance.(1103) Moreover it was highly necessary also for
this reason, that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly both God
and man. It was his office to swallow up death; who could do this, but he
who was life itself? It was his to overcome sin; who could accomplish
this, but righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of
the world and of the air; who could do this, but a power superior both to
the world and to the air? Now, who possesses life or righteousness, or the
empire and power of heaven, but God alone? Therefore the most merciful
God, when he determined on our redemption, became himself our Redeemer in
the person of his only begotten Son!

III. Another branch of our reconciliation with God was this—that man, who
had ruined himself by his own disobedience, should remedy his condition by
obedience, should satisfy the justice of God, and suffer the punishment of
his sin. Our Lord then made his appearance as a real man; he put on the
character of Adam, and assumed his name, to act as his substitute in his
obedience to the Father, to lay down our flesh as the price of
satisfaction to the justice of God; and to suffer the punishment which we
had deserved, in the same nature in which the offence had been committed.
As it would have been impossible, therefore, for one who was only God to
suffer death, or for one who was a mere man to overcome it, he associated
the human nature with the Divine, that he might submit the weakness of the
former to death, as an atonement for sins; and that with the power of the
latter he might contend with death, and obtain a victory on our behalf.
Those who despoil Christ, therefore, either of his Divinity or his
humanity, either diminish his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness.
Nor are they, on the other hand, less injurious to men, whose faith they
weaken and subvert; since it cannot stand any longer than it rests upon
this foundation. Moreover, the Redeemer to be expected was that Son of
Abraham and David, whom God had promised in the law and the prophets.
Hence the minds of the faithful derive another advantage, because from the
circumstance of his ancestry being traced to David and to Abraham, they
have an additional assurance that this is the Christ, who was celebrated
in so many prophecies. But we should particularly remember, what I have
just stated—that our common nature is a pledge of our fellowship with the
Son of God; that, clothed in our flesh, he vanquished sin and death, in
order that the victory and triumph might be ours; that the flesh which he
received from us he offered up as a sacrifice, in order to expiate and
obliterate our guilt, and appease the just wrath of the Father.

IV. The persons who consider these things, with the diligent attention
which they deserve, will easily disregard vague speculations which attract
minds that are inconstant and fond of novelty. Such is the notion, that
Christ would have become man, even though the human race had needed no
redemption. I grant, indeed, that at the original creation, and in the
state of integrity, he was exalted as head over angels and men; for which
reason Paul calls him “the first‐born of every creature;”(1104) but since
the whole Scriptures proclaim, that he was clothed in flesh in order to
become a Redeemer, it argues excessive temerity to imagine another cause
or another end for it. The end for which Christ was promised from the
beginning, is sufficiently known; it was to restore a fallen world, and to
succour ruined men. Therefore under the law his image was exhibited in
sacrifices, to inspire the faithful with a hope that God would be
propitious to them, after he should be reconciled by the expiation of
their sins. And as, in all ages, even before the promulgation of the law,
the Mediator was never promised without blood, we conclude that he was
destined by the eternal decree of God to purify the pollution of men;
because the effusion of blood is an emblem of expiation. The prophets
proclaimed and foretold him, as the future reconciler of God and men. As a
sufficient specimen of all, we refer to that very celebrated testimony of
Isaiah, where he predicts, that he should be smitten of God for the
transgressions of the people, that the chastisement of their peace might
be upon him; and that he should be a priest to offer up himself as a
victim; that by his stripes others should be healed; and that because all
men had gone astray, and been dispersed like sheep, it had pleased the
Lord to afflict him and to lay on him the iniquities of all.(1105) As we
are informed that Christ is particularly appointed by God for the relief
of miserable sinners, all who pass these bounds are guilty of indulging a
foolish curiosity. When he himself appeared in the world, he declared the
design of his advent to be, to appease God and restore us from death to
life. The apostles testified the same. Thus John, before he informs us
that the Word was made flesh, mentions the defection of man.(1106) But our
principal attention is due to Christ himself speaking of his own office.
He says, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.”(1107) Again: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”(1108) “I
am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were
dead, yet shall he live.”(1109) Again: “The Son of man is come to save
that which was lost.”(1110) Again: “They that be whole need not a
physician.”(1111) There would be no end, if I meant to quote all the
passages. The apostles with one consent call us back to this principle;
for certainly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his
priesthood would have been lost, for a priest is appointed as a Mediator
to intercede between God and men:(1112) he could not have been our
righteousness, because he was made a sacrifice for us, that God might not
impute sins to us.(1113) Finally, he would have been despoiled of all the
noble characters under which he is celebrated in the Scripture. This
assertion of Paul would have no foundation: “What the law could not do,
God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh.”(1114) Nor would there be any truth in what he
teaches in another place, that “the kindness and love of God our Saviour
towards man appeared”(1115) in the gift of Christ as a Redeemer. To
conclude, the Scripture no where assigns any other end, for which the Son
of God should choose to become incarnate, and should also receive this
command from the Father, than that he might be made a sacrifice to appease
the Father on our account. “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ
to suffer; and that repentance should be preached in his name.”(1116)
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. This
commandment have I received of my Father.”(1117) “As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up.”(1118) Again: “Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came
I unto this hour.”(1119) “Father, glorify thy Son.”(1120) Where he clearly
assigns, as the end of his assumption of human nature, that it was to be
an expiatory sacrifice for the abolition of sins. For the same reason,
Zacharias pronounces that he is come, according to the promise given to
the fathers, “to give light to them that sit in the shadow of
death.”(1121) Let us remember that all these things are spoken of the Son
of God, “in whom,” according to the testimony of Paul, “are hidden all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”(1122) and besides whom he glories in
knowing nothing.(1123)

V. If any one object, that it is not evinced by any of these things, that
the same Christ, who has redeemed men from condemnation, could not have
testified his love to them by assuming their nature, if they had remained
in a state of integrity and safety,—we briefly reply, that since the
Spirit declares these two things, Christ’s becoming our Redeemer, and his
participation of the same nature, to have been connected by the eternal
decree of God, it is not right to make any further inquiry. For he who
feels an eager desire to know something more, not being content with the
immutable appointment of God, shows himself also not to be contented with
this Christ, who has been given to us as the price of our redemption. Paul
not only tells us the end of his mission, but ascending to the sublime
mystery of predestination, very properly represses all the licentiousness
and prurience of the human mind, by declaring, that “the Father hath
chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and predestinated
us to the adoption of children according to the good pleasure of his will,
and made us accepted in his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption
through his blood.”(1124) Here the fall of Adam is certainly not
presupposed, as of anterior date; but we have a discovery of what was
decreed by God before all ages, when he determined to remedy the misery of
mankind. If any adversary object again, that this design of God depended
on the fall of man, which he foresaw, it is abundantly sufficient for me,
that every man is proceeding with impious presumption to imagine to
himself a new Christ, whoever he be that permits himself to inquire, or
wishes to know, concerning Christ, any more than God has predestinated in
his secret decree. And justly does Paul, after having been thus treating
of the peculiar office of Christ, implore, on behalf of the Ephesians, the
spirit of understanding, “that they may be able to comprehend what is the
breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of
Christ, which passeth knowledge;”(1125) as though he would labour to
surround our minds with barriers, that wherever mention is made of Christ,
they may not decline in the smallest degree from the grace of
reconciliation. Wherefore, since “this is” testified by Paul to be “a
faithful saying, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners,”(1126) I gladly acquiesce in it. And since the same apostle in
another place informs us, that “the grace, which is now made manifest by
the gospel, was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”(1127) I
conclude that I ought to persevere in the same doctrine with constancy to
the end. This modesty is unreasonably censured by Osiander, who in the
present age has unhappily agitated this question, which a few persons had
slightly touched before. He alleges a charge of presumption against those
who deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh, if Adam had
never fallen, because this tenet is contradicted by no testimony of
Scripture; as if Paul laid no restraint on such perverse curiosity, when,
after having spoken of the accomplishment of our redemption by Christ, he
immediately adds this injunction: “Avoid foolish questions.”(1128) The
frenzy of some, that have been desirous of appearing prodigiously acute,
has proceeded to such a length as to question whether the Son of God could
assume the nature of an ass. This monstrous supposition, which all pious
persons justly abhor and detest, Osiander excuses under this pretext, that
it is nowhere in Scripture expressly condemned; as if, when Paul esteems
nothing valuable or worthy of being known but Christ crucified, he would
admit an ass to be the author of salvation! Therefore he who in another
place declares that Christ was appointed by the eternal decree of the
Father as “the head over all,”(1129) would never acknowledge any other who
had not been appointed to the office of a Redeemer.

VI. But the principle which he boasts is altogether frivolous. He
maintains that man was created in the image of God, because he was formed
in the similitude of the future Messiah, that he might resemble him whom
the Father had already decreed to clothe with flesh. Whence he concludes
that if Adam had never fallen from his primitive integrity, Christ would
nevertheless have become man. How nugatory and forced this is, all who
possess a sound judgment readily perceive. But he supposes that he has
been the first to discover wherein the Divine image consisted; namely,
that the glory of God not only shone in those eminent talents with which
man was endued, but that God himself essentially resided in him. Now,
though I admit that Adam bore the Divine image, inasmuch as he was united
to God, which is the true and consummate perfection of dignity, yet I
contend that the similitude of God is to be sought only in those
characters of excellence, with which God distinguished Adam above the
other creatures. And that Christ was even then the image of God, is
universally allowed; and therefore whatever excellence was impressed on
Adam proceeded from this circumstance, that he approached to the glory of
his Maker by means of his only begotten Son. Man, therefore, was made in
the image of God, and was designed to be a mirror to display the glory of
his Creator. He was exalted to this degree of honour by the favour of the
only begotten Son; but I add, that this Son was a common head to angels as
well as to men; so that the angels also were entitled to the same dignity
which was conferred on man. And when we hear them called the “children of
God,”(1130) it would be unreasonable to deny that they have some
resemblance to their Father. But if he designed his glory to be
represented in angels as well as in men, and to be equally conspicuous in
the angelic as in the human nature, Osiander betrays his ignorance and
folly in saying that men were preferred to angels, because the latter did
not bear the image of Christ. For they could not constantly enjoy the
present contemplation of God, unless they were like him. And Paul teaches
us that men are no otherwise renewed after the image of God, than that if
they be associated with angels, they may be united together under one
head.(1131) Finally, if we give credit to Christ, our ultimate felicity,
when we shall be received into heaven, will consist in being conformed to
the angels. But if Osiander may infer, that the primary exemplar of the
Divine image was taken from the human nature of Christ, with the same
justice may any other person contend, that Christ must have been a
partaker of the nature of angels, because they likewise possess the image
of God.

VII. Osiander, then, has no reason to fear, that God might possibly be
proved a liar, unless the decree concerning the incarnation of his Son had
been previously and immutably fixed in his mind. Because, though Adam had
not fallen from his integrity, yet he would have resembled God just as the
angels do; and yet it would not have been necessary on that account for
the Son of God to become either a man or an angel. Nor has he any cause to
fear this absurdity, that if God had not immutably decreed, before the
creation of man, that Christ should be born, not as a Redeemer, but as the
first man, he might lose his prerogative; whereas now he would not have
become incarnate but for an accidental cause, that is, to restore mankind
from ruin; so that he might thence infer, that Christ was created after
the image of Adam. For why should he dread, what the Scripture so plainly
teaches, that he was made like us in all things, sin excepted?(1132)
whence also Luke hesitates not in his genealogy to call him “the son of
Adam.”(1133) I would also wish to know why Paul styles Christ “the second
Adam,”(1134) but because he was destined to become man, in order to
extricate the posterity of Adam from ruin. If he sustained that capacity
before the creation, he ought to have been called “the first Adam.”
Osiander boldly affirms, that because Christ was already foreknown as man
in the Divine mind, therefore men were formed in his likeness. But Paul,
by denominating him “the second Adam,” places the fall, whence arises the
necessity of restoring our nature to its primitive condition, in an
intermediate point between the first original of mankind and the
restitution which we obtain through Christ; whence it follows that the
fall was the cause of the incarnation of the Son of God. Now, Osiander
argues unreasonably and impertinently, that while Adam retained his
integrity, he would be the image of himself, and not of Christ. On the
contrary, I reply, that although the Son of God had never been incarnate,
both the body and the soul of man would equally have displayed the image
of God; in whose radiance it always appeared, that Christ was truly the
head, possessing the supremacy over all. And thus we destroy that futile
subtilty raised by Osiander, that the angels would have been destitute of
this head, unless God had decreed to clothe his Son with flesh, even
without any transgression of Adam. For he too inconsiderately takes for
granted, what no wise man will concede, that Christ has no supremacy over
angels, and that he is not their Prince, except in his human nature. But
we may easily conclude, from the language of Paul, that, as the eternal
Word of God, he is “the first‐born of every creature;”(1135) not that he
was created, or ought to be numbered among creatures, but because the holy
state of the world, adorned as it was at the beginning with consummate
beauty, had no other author; and that afterwards, as man, he was “the
first begotten from the dead.” For in one short passage he proposes to our
consideration both these points—that all things were created by the Son,
that he might have dominion over angels; and that he was made man, that he
might become our Redeemer.(1136) Another proof of Osiander’s ignorance is
his assertion, that men would not have had Christ for their King, if he
had not been incarnate; as though the kingdom of God could not subsist, if
the eternal Son of God, without being invested with humanity, uniting
angels and men in the participation of his glorious life, had himself held
the supreme dominion! But he is always deceived, or rather bewilders
himself, in this false principle, that the Church would have been
destitute of a head, if Christ had not been manifested in the flesh; as
if, while he was head over angels, he could not likewise by his Divine
power preside over men, and by the secret energy of his Spirit animate and
support them, like his own body, till they should be exalted to heaven,
and enjoy the life of angels! These impertinencies, which I have thus far
refuted, Osiander esteems as incontrovertible oracles. Inebriated by the
charms of his own speculations, he is accustomed to express himself in the
language of ridiculous triumph, without any sufficient cause. But he
quotes one passage more, which he asserts to be conclusive beyond all the
rest; that is, the prophecy of Adam, who, when he saw his wife, said,
“This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.”(1137) But how does
he prove this to be a prophecy? Because Christ, according to Matthew,
attributes the same language to God; as though every thing that God has
spoken by men contained some prophecy! Then Osiander may seek for
prophecies in each of the precepts of the law, of which it is evident God
was the author. Besides, Christ would have been a low and grovelling
expositor, if he had confined himself to the literal sense. Because he is
treating, not of the mystical union, with which he has honoured his
Church, but only of conjugal fidelity; he informs us, that God had
pronounced a husband and wife to be one flesh, that no one might attempt
by a divorce to violate that indissoluble bond. If Osiander be displeased
with this simplicity, let him censure Christ, because he did not conduct
his disciples to a mystery, by a more subtile interpretation of the
language of the Father. Nor does his delirious imagination obtain any
support from Paul, who, after having said that “we are members of Christ’s
flesh,” immediately adds, “this is a great mystery.”(1138) For the
apostle’s design was, not to explain the sense in which Adam spoke, but,
under the figure and similitude of marriage, to display the sacred union
which makes us one with Christ. And this is implied in his very words; for
when he apprizes us that he is speaking of Christ and the Church, he
introduces a kind of correction to distinguish between the law of marriage
and the spiritual union of Christ and the Church. Wherefore this futile
notion appears destitute of any solid foundation. Nor do I think there
will be any necessity for me to discuss similar subtilties; since the
vanity of them all will be discovered from the foregoing very brief
refutation. But this sober declaration will be amply sufficient for the
solid satisfaction of the children of God; that “when the fulness of the
time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the
law, to redeem them that were under the law.”(1139)

Chapter XIII. Christ’s Assumption Of Real Humanity.

The arguments for the Divinity of Christ, which has already been proved by
clear and irrefragable testimonies, it would, I conceive, be unnecessary
to reiterate. It remains, then, for us to examine, how, after having been
invested with our flesh, he has performed the office of a Mediator. Now,
the reality of his humanity was anciently opposed by the Manichæans and by
the Marcionites. Of whom the latter imagined to themselves a visionary
phantom instead of the body of Christ; and the former dreamed that he had
a celestial body. But both these notions are contrary to numerous and
powerful testimonies of Scripture. For the blessing is promised, neither
in a heavenly seed, nor in a phantom of a man, but in the seed of Abraham
and Jacob; nor is the eternal throne promised to an aërial man, but to the
Son of David and the fruit of his loins.(1140) Wherefore, on his
manifestation in the flesh, he is called the Son of David and of Abraham,
not because he was merely born of the virgin after having been formed of
some aërial substance; but because, according to Paul, he was “made of the
seed of David according to the flesh;” as the same apostle in another
place informs us, that “according to the flesh” he descended from the
Jews.(1141) Wherefore the Lord himself, not content with the appellation
of _man_, frequently calls himself also _the Son of Man_—a term which he
intended as a more express declaration of his real humanity. As the Holy
Spirit has on so many occasions, by so many instruments, and with such
great diligence and simplicity, declared a fact by no means abstruse in
itself, who could have supposed that any mortals would have such
consummate impudence as to dare to obscure it with subtilties? But more
testimonies offer themselves, if we wished to multiply them; such as this
of Paul, that “God sent forth his Son made of a woman;”(1142) and
innumerable others, from which he appears to have been liable to hunger,
thirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. But from the multitude
we must chiefly select those, which may conduce to the edification of our
minds in true faith; as when it is said, that “he took not on him the
nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham;” that he took
flesh and blood, “that through death he might destroy him that had the
power of death;” for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren;
that “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that
he might be a merciful and faithful high priest;” that “we have not a high
priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;”(1143)
and the like. To the same purpose is what we have just before mentioned,
that it was necessary for the sins of the world to be expiated in our
flesh; which is clearly asserted by Paul.(1144) And certainly all that the
Father has conferred on Christ, belongs to us, because he “is the head,
from whom the whole body is fitly joined together, and compacted by that
which every joint supplieth.”(1145) There will otherwise be no propriety
in the declaration, “that God giveth the Spirit not by measure unto him,
that we may all receive of his fulness;”(1146) since nothing would be more
absurd, than that God should be enriched in his essence by any
adventitious gift. For this reason also Christ himself says in another
place, “For their sakes I sanctify myself.”(1147)

II. The passages which they adduce in confirmation of this error, they
most foolishly pervert; nor do their frivolous subtilties at all avail
them in their endeavours to obviate the arguments which I have advanced in
defence of our sentiments. Marcion imagines that Christ invested himself
with a phantom instead of a real body; because he is said to have been
“made in the likeness of men,” and to have been “found in fashion as a
man.”(1148) But in drawing this conclusion, he totally overlooks the scope
of Paul in that passage. For his design is, not to describe the nature of
the body which Christ assumed, but to assert that whilst he might have
displayed his Divinity, he manifested himself in the condition of an
abject and despised man. For, to exhort us to humility by the example of
Christ, he shows, that being God, he might have instantaneously made a
conspicuous exhibition of his glory to the world; yet that he receded from
his right, and voluntarily debased himself, for that he assumed the form
of a servant, and content with that humble station, suffered his Divinity
to be hidden behind the veil of humanity. The subject of this statement,
without doubt, is not the nature of Christ, but his conduct. From the
whole context also it is easy to infer, that Christ humbled himself by the
assumption of a real human nature. For what is the meaning of this clause,
“that he was found in fashion as a man,” but that for a time his Divine
glory was invisible, and nothing appeared but the human form, in a mean
and abject condition? For otherwise there would be no foundation for this
assertion of Peter, that he was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened
by the Spirit,”(1149) if the Son of God had not been subject to the
infirmities of human nature. This is more plainly expressed by Paul, when
he says, that “he was crucified through weakness.”(1150) The same is
confirmed by his exaltation, because he is positively asserted to have
obtained a new glory after his humiliation; which could only be applicable
to a real man composed of body and soul. Manichæus fabricates for Christ
an aërial body; because he is called “the second Adam, the Lord from
heaven.”(1151) But the apostle in that place is not speaking of a
celestial corporeal essence, but of a spiritual energy, which, being
diffused from Christ, raises us into life. That energy we have already
seen that Peter and Paul distinguish from his body. The orthodox doctrine,
therefore, concerning the body of Christ, is firmly established by this
very passage. For unless Christ had the same corporeal nature with us,
there would be no force in the argument which Paul so vehemently urges,
that if Christ be risen from the dead, then we also shall rise; that if we
rise not, neither is Christ risen.(1152) Of whatever cavils either the
ancient Manichæans, or their modern disciples, endeavour to avail
themselves, they cannot succeed. Their nugatory pretence that Christ is
called “the Son of man,” because he was promised to men, is a vain
subterfuge; for it is evident that in the Hebrew idiom, _the Son of man_
is a phrase expressive of a real man. And Christ undoubtedly retained the
phraseology of his own language. There is no room for disputing what is
meant by _the sons of Adam_. And not to go any further, it will be fully
sufficient to quote a passage in the eighth psalm which the apostles apply
to Christ: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man,
that thou visitest him?” This phrase expresses the true humanity of
Christ; because, though he was not immediately begotten by a mortal
father, yet his descent was derived from Adam. Nor would there otherwise
be any truth in what we have just quoted, that Christ became a partaker of
flesh and blood, that he might bring many sons to glory—language which
clearly styles him to be a partaker of the same common nature with us. In
the same sense the apostle says, that “both he that sanctifieth and they
who are sanctified are all of one.” For the context proves that this
refers to a community of nature; because he immediately adds, “for which
cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”(1153) For if he had
already said that the faithful are of God, what reason could Jesus Christ
have to be ashamed of such great dignity? But because Christ, of his
infinite grace, associates himself with those who are vile and
contemptible, it is therefore said that he is not ashamed. It is a vain
objection which they make, that on this principle the impious will become
the brethren of Christ; because we know that the children of God are born,
not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith; therefore a
community of nature alone is not sufficient to constitute a fraternal
union. But though it is only to the faithful that the apostle assigns the
honour of being one with Christ, yet it does not follow that unbelievers
are not, according to the flesh, born of the same original; as, when we
say that Christ was made man, to make us children of God, this expression
extends not to all men; because faith is the medium by which we are
spiritually ingrafted into the body of Christ. They likewise raise a
foolish contention respecting the appellation of _first‐born_. They plead
that Christ ought to have been born at the beginning, immediately of Adam,
in order “that he might be the first‐born among many brethren.”(1154) But
the primogeniture attributed to him refers not to age, but to the degree
of honour and the eminence of power which he enjoys. Nor is there any more
plausibility in their notion, that Christ is said to have assumed the
nature of man, and not of angels, because he received the human race into
his favour. For the apostle, to magnify the honour with which Christ has
favoured us, compares us with the angels, before whom in this respect we
are preferred.(1155) And if the testimony of Moses be duly considered,
where he says that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the
serpent,(1156) it will decide the whole controversy. For that prediction
relates not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Because the
victory was to be gained for us by Christ, God pronounces, in general,
that the posterity of the woman should be superior to the devil. Whence it
follows, that Christ descended from the human race; because the design of
God, in that promise to Eve, was to comfort her with a good hope, that she
might not be overcome with sorrow.

III. Those passages, where Christ is called “the seed of Abraham,” and
“the fruit of the body of David,” they with equal folly and wickedness
involve in allegories. For if the word _seed_ had been used in an
allegorical sense, Paul certainly would not have been silent respecting
it, where, without any figure, he explicitly affirms, that there are not
many sons of Abraham who are Redeemers, but Christ alone.(1157) Equally
unfounded is their notion, that Christ is called the Son of David in no
other sense, but because he had been promised, and was at length
manifested in due time. For after Paul has declared him to have been “made
of the seed of David,” the immediate addition of this phrase, “according
to the flesh,”(1158) is certainly a designation of nature. Thus also in
another place he calls him “God blessed for ever,” and distinctly states
that he descended from the Jews “as concerning the flesh.”(1159) Now, if
he was not really begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of
this expression, “the fruit of his loins?”(1160) What becomes of this
promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?”(1161) They
likewise trifle in a sophistical manner with the genealogy of Christ, as
it is given by Matthew. For though he mentions the parents of Joseph, and
not of Mary, yet as he was treating of a thing then generally known, he
thought it sufficient to show that Joseph descended from the seed of
David, while there could be no doubt that Mary was of the same family. But
Luke goes further, with a view to signify, that the salvation procured by
Christ is common to all mankind; since Christ, the author of salvation, is
descended from Adam, the common parent of all. I grant, indeed, that from
the genealogy it cannot be inferred that Christ is the Son of David, any
otherwise than as he was born of the Virgin. But the modern Marcionites,
to give a plausibility to their error, that Christ derived his body from
nothing, contend that women have no generative semen; and thus they
subvert the elements of nature. But as this is not a theological question,
and the arguments which they adduce are so futile that there will be no
difficulty in repelling them, I shall not meddle with points belonging to
philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient for me to obviate
the objection which they allege from the Scripture, namely, that Aaron and
Jehoiada married wives of the tribe of Judah; and thus, if women contain
generative semen, the distinction of tribes was confounded. But it is
sufficiently known, that, for the purposes of political regulation, the
posterity is always reckoned from the father; yet that the superiority of
the male sex forms no objection to the coöperation of the female semen in
the process of generation. This solution extends to all the genealogies.
Frequently, when the Scripture exhibits a catalogue of names, it mentions
none but men; is it therefore to be concluded that women are nothing? Even
children themselves know that women are comprehended under their husbands.
For this reason women are said to bear children to their husbands, because
the name of the family always remains with the males. Now, as it is a
privilege conceded to the superiority of the male sex, that children
should be accounted noble or ignoble, according to the condition of their
fathers, so, on the other hand, it is held by the lawyers, that in a state
of slavery the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Whence we
may infer, that the offspring is produced partly from the seed of the
mother; and the common language of all nations implies that mothers have
some share in the generation of children. This is in harmony with the
Divine law, which otherwise would have no ground for the prohibition of
the marriage of an uncle with his sister’s daughter; because in that case
there would be no consanguinity. It would also be lawful for a man to
marry his uterine sister, provided she were begotten by another father.
But while I grant that a passive power is ascribed to women, I also
maintain that the same that is affirmed of men is indiscriminately
predicated of them. Nor is Christ himself said to be “made” by a woman,
but “of a woman.”(1162) Some of these persons, casting off all modesty,
impudently inquire, whether we choose to say that Christ was procreated
from the menstrual seed of the Virgin. I will inquire, on the other hand,
whether he was not united with the blood of his mother; and this they must
be constrained to confess. It is properly inferred, therefore, from the
language of Matthew, that inasmuch as Christ was begotten of Mary,(1163)
he was procreated from her seed; as when Booz is said to have been
begotten of Rahab,(1164) it denotes a similar generation. Nor is it the
design of Matthew here to describe the Virgin as a tube through which
Christ passed, but to discriminate this miraculous conception from
ordinary generation, in that Jesus Christ was generated of the seed of
David by means of a Virgin. In the same sense, and for the same reason
that Isaac is said to have been begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and
Joseph of Jacob, so Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother.
For the evangelist has written the whole of his account upon this
principle; and to prove that Christ descended from David, he has contented
himself with this one fact, that he was begotten of Mary. Whence it
follows, that he took for granted the consanguinity of Mary and Joseph.

IV. The absurdities, with which these opponents wish to press us, are
replete with puerile cavils. They esteem it mean and dishonourable to
Christ, that he should derive his descent from men; because he could not
be exempt from the universal law, which concludes all the posterity of
Adam, without exception, under sin.(1165) But the antithesis, which we
find in Paul, easily solves this difficulty: “As by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin, even so by the righteousness of one, the
grace of God hath abounded.”(1166) To this the following passage
corresponds: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the
Lord from heaven.”(1167) Therefore the same apostle, in another place, by
teaching us that Christ was “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh”(1168)
to satisfy the law, expressly distinguishes him from the common condition
of mankind; so that he is a real man, and yet free from all fault and
corruption. They betray their ignorance in arguing that, if Christ is
perfectly immaculate, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret
operation of the Spirit, then it follows that there is no impurity in the
seed of women, but only in that of men. For we do not represent Christ as
perfectly immaculate, merely because he was born of the seed of a woman
unconnected with any man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so
that his generation was pure and holy, such as it would have been before
the fall of Adam. And it is a fixed maxim with us, that whenever the
Scripture mentions the purity of Christ, it relates to a real humanity;
because to assert the purity of Deity would be quite unnecessary. The
sanctification, also, of which he speaks in the seventeenth chapter of
John,(1169) could have no reference to the Divine nature. Nor do we, as
they pretend, imagine two kinds of seed in Adam, notwithstanding Christ
was free from all contagion. For the generation of man is not naturally
and originally impure and corrupt, but only accidentally so, in
consequence of the fall. Therefore we need not wonder, that Christ, who
was to restore our integrity, was exempted from the general corruption.
But what they urge on us as an absurdity, that if the Word of God was
clothed with flesh, it was therefore confined within the narrow prison of
an earthly body, is mere impudence; because, although the infinite essence
of the Word is united in one person with the nature of man, yet we have no
idea of its incarceration or confinement. For the Son of God miraculously
descended from heaven, yet in such a manner that he never left heaven; he
chose to be miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin, to live on
the earth, and to be suspended on the cross; and yet he never ceased to
fill the universe, in the same manner as from the beginning.

Chapter XIV. The Union Of The Two Natures Constituting The Person Of The
Mediator.

When it is said that “the Word was made flesh,”(1170) this is not to be
understood as if the Word was transmuted into flesh, or blended with
flesh. Choosing from the womb of the Virgin a temple for his residence, he
who was the Son of God, became also the Son of man, not by a confusion of
substance, but by a unity of person. For we assert such a connection and
union of the Divinity with the humanity, that each nature retains its
properties entire, and yet both together constitute one Christ. If any
thing among men can be found to resemble so great a mystery, man himself
appears to furnish the most apposite similitude; being evidently composed
of two substances, of which, however, neither is so confounded with the
other, as not to retain its distinct nature. For the soul is not the body,
nor is the body the soul. Wherefore that is predicated separately of the
soul, which cannot be at all applied to the body. On the contrary, that is
predicated of the body, which is totally incompatible with the soul. And
that is predicated of the whole man, which cannot with propriety be
understood either of the soul or of the body alone. Lastly, the properties
of the soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to
the soul; yet he that is composed of these two parts is no more than one
man. Such forms of expression signify that there is in man one person
composed of two distinct parts; and that there are two different natures
united in him to constitute that one person. The Scriptures speak in a
similar manner respecting Christ. They attribute to him, sometimes those
things which are applicable merely to his humanity; sometimes those things
which belong peculiarly to his Divinity; and not unfrequently those things
which comprehend both his natures, but are incompatible with either of
them alone. And this union of the two natures in Christ they so carefully
maintain, that they sometimes attribute to one what belongs to the other—a
mode of expression which the ancient writers called a communication of
properties.

II. These things might be liable to objection, if the Scripture did not
abound with passages, which prove that none of them is of human invention.
What Christ asserted concerning himself, “Before Abraham was, I am,”(1171)
was very inapplicable to his humanity. I am aware of the cavil with which
erroneous spirits would corrupt this passage,—that he was before all ages,
because he was even then foreknown as the Redeemer, as well in the decree
of the Father, as in the minds of the faithful. But as he clearly
distinguishes the day of his manifestation from his eternal essence, and
professedly urges his antiquity, in proof of his possessing an authority
in which he excels Abraham, there is no doubt that he challenges to
himself what is peculiar to the Deity. Paul asserts him to be “the first‐
born of every creature, that he is before all things, and that by him all
things consist:”(1172) he declares himself, that he “had a glory with the
Father before the world was,”(1173) and that he coöperates with the
Father.(1174) These things are equally incompatible with humanity. It is
certain that these, and such as these, are peculiar attributes of
Divinity. But when he is called the “servant” of the Father;(1175) when it
is stated that he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God
and man;”(1176) that he seeks not his own glory; that he knows not the
last day; that he speaks not of himself; that he does not his own will;
that he was seen and handled;(1177) all this belongs solely to his
humanity. For as he is God, he is incapable of any augmentation whatever;
he does all things for his own glory, and there is nothing concealed from
him; he does all things according to the decision of his own will, and is
invisible and intangible. And yet he ascribes these things not to his
human nature separately, but to himself, as though they belonged to the
person of the Mediator. But the communication of properties is exemplified
in the assertion of Paul that “God purchased the Church with his own
blood,”(1178) and that “the Lord of glory” was “crucified.”(1179) Also in
what John says, that they had “handled the Word of life.”(1180) God has no
blood; he is not capable of suffering, or of being touched with hands; but
since he, who was at once the true God and the man Christ Jesus, was
crucified and shed his blood for us, those things which were performed in
his human nature are improperly, yet not without reason, transferred to
the Divinity. There is a similar example of this, where John teaches us,
that “God laid down his life for us.”(1181) There also the property of the
humanity is transferred to the other nature. Again, when Christ, while he
still lived on the earth, said, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven:”(1182)
as man, and in the body which he had assumed, he certainly was not at that
time in heaven, but because he was both God and man, on account of the
union of both natures, he attributed to one what belonged to the other.

III. But the clearest of all the passages declarative of the true
substance of Christ are those which comprehend both the natures together;
such as abound in the Gospel of John. For it is not with exclusive
reference to the Deity or the humanity, but respecting the complex person
composed of both, that we find it there stated; that he has received of
the Father power to forgive sins, to raise up whom he will, to bestow
righteousness, holiness, and salvation; that he is appointed to be the
Judge of the living and the dead, that he may receive the same honour as
the Father;(1183) finally, that he is “the light of the world,” “the good
shepherd,” “the only door,” “the true vine.”(1184) For with such
prerogatives was the Son of God invested at his manifestation in the
flesh; which although he enjoyed with the Father before the creation of
the world, yet not in the same manner or on the same account; and which
could not be conferred on a mere man. In the same sense also it is
reasonable to understand the declaration of Paul, that after the last
judgment Christ “shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father.”(1185) Now, the kingdom of the Son of God, which had no beginning,
will never have any end. But as he concealed himself under the meanness of
the flesh, and humbled himself by assuming the form of a servant, and laid
aside his external majesty in obedience to the Father,(1186) and after
having undergone this humiliation, was at length crowned with glory and
honour, and exalted to supreme dominion,(1187) that before him “every knee
should bow;”(1188) so he shall then surrender to the Father that name and
crown of glory, and all that he has received from the Father, “that God
may be all in all.”(1189) For why has power and dominion been given to
him, but that the Father may rule us by his hand? In this sense he is also
said to sit at the right hand of the Father. But this is only temporary,
till we can enjoy the immediate contemplation of the Deity. And here it is
impossible to excuse the error of the ancients, who, for want of
sufficient attention to the person of the Mediator, obscure the genuine
sense of almost all the doctrine which we have in the Gospel of John, and
involve themselves in many difficulties. Let this maxim, then, serve us as
a key to the true sense, that those things which relate to the office of
the Mediator, are not spoken simply of his Divine or of his human nature.
Christ therefore will reign, till he comes to judge the world, forasmuch
as he connects us with the Father as far as is compatible with our
infirmity. But when we shall participate the glory of heaven, and see God
as he is, then, having fulfilled the office of Mediator, he will cease to
be the ambassador of the Father, and will be content with that glory which
he enjoyed before the creation of the world. Nor is the title of Lord
peculiarly applied to the person of Christ in any other respect, than as
it marks an intermediate station between God and us. This is the meaning
of that expression of Paul, “One God, of whom are all things; and one
Lord, by whom are all things;”(1190) namely, to whom the Father has
committed a temporary dominion, till we shall be admitted to the immediate
presence of his Divine majesty; which will be so far from sustaining any
diminution by his surrender of the kingdom to the Father, that it will
exhibit itself in far superior splendour. For then also God will cease to
be the head of Christ, because the Deity of Christ himself, which is still
covered with a veil, will shine forth in all its native effulgence.

IV. And this observation, if the reader make a judicious application of
it, will be of great use towards the solution of many difficulties. For it
is surprising how much ignorant persons, and even some who are not
altogether destitute of learning, are perplexed by such forms of
expression, as they find attributed to Christ, which are not exactly
appropriate either to his Divinity or to his humanity. This is for want of
considering that they are applicable to his complex person, consisting of
God and man, and to his office of Mediator. And indeed we may see the most
beautiful coherence between all these things, if they have only a sober
expositor, to examine such great mysteries with becoming reverence. But
these furious and frantic spirits throw every thing into confusion. They
lay hold of the properties of his humanity, to destroy his Divinity; on
the other hand, they catch at the attributes of his Divinity, to destroy
his humanity; and by what is spoken of both natures united, but is
applicable separately to neither, they attempt to destroy both. Now, what
is this but to contend that Christ is not man, because he is God; that he
is not God, because he is man; and that he is neither man nor God, because
he is at once both man and God? We conclude, therefore, that Christ, as he
is God and man, composed of these two natures united, yet not confounded,
is our Lord and the true Son of God, even in his humanity; though not on
account of his humanity. For we ought carefully to avoid the error of
Nestorius, who, attempting rather to divide than to distinguish the two
natures, thereby imagined a double Christ. This we find clearly
contradicted by the Scripture, where the appellation of “the Son of God”
is given to him who was born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is
called “the mother of our Lord.”(1191) We must also beware of the error of
Eutyches, lest while we aim to establish the unity of Christ’s person, we
destroy the distinction of his two natures. For we have already cited so
many testimonies, where his Divinity is distinguished from his humanity,
and the Scripture abounds with so many others, that they may silence even
the most contentious. I shall shortly subjoin some, in order to a more
complete refutation of that notion. At present one passage shall suffice
us; for Christ would not have styled his body “a temple,”(1192) if it had
not been the residence of the Divinity, and at the same time distinct from
it. Wherefore, as Nestorius was justly condemned in the council of
Ephesus, so also was Eutyches afterwards in the councils of Constantinople
and Chalcedon; for to confound the two natures in Christ, and to separate
them, are equally wrong.

V. But in our time also there has arisen a heretic equally pestilent,
Michael Servetus, who in the place of the Son of God has substituted an
imaginary being composed of the essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three
uncreated elements. In the first place, he denies Christ to be the Son of
God, in any other respect than as he was begotten by the Holy Spirit in
the womb of the Virgin. But his subtlety tends to subvert the distinction
of the two natures, and thereby to represent Christ as something composed
of God and man, and yet neither God nor man. For this is the principal
point which he constantly endeavours to establish, that before Christ was
manifested in the flesh, there were in God only some shadowy figures; the
truth or effect of which had no real existence till the Word, who had been
destined to this honour, actually began to be the Son of God. Now, we
confess that the Mediator, who was born of the Virgin, is properly the Son
of God. Nor indeed could the man Christ be a mirror of the inestimable
grace of God, if this dignity had not been conferred on him, to be, and to
be called, “the only begotten Son of God.” The doctrine of the Church,
however, remains unshaken, that he is accounted the Son of God, because,
being the Word begotten by the Father before all ages, he assumed the
human nature in a hypostatical union. By the “hypostatical union” the
ancients expressed the combination of two natures constituting one person.
It was invented to refute the error of Nestorius, who imagined the Son of
God to have dwelt in flesh in such a manner as, notwithstanding that, to
have had no real humanity. Servetus falsely accuses us of making two Sons
of God, when we say that the eternal Word was the Son of God, before he
was clothed with flesh; as though we affirmed any other than that he was
manifested in the flesh. For if he was God before he became man, it is not
to be inferred that he began to be a new God. There is no more absurdity
in affirming that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, who nevertheless
was always the Son of God by eternal generation. This is implied in the
words of the angel to Mary: “That holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God;”(1193) as though he had said, that the
name of the Son, which had been in obscurity under the law, was about to
be celebrated and universally known. Consistent with this is the
representation of Paul; that through Christ we are the sons of God, and
may freely and confidently cry, Abba, Father.(1194) But were not the holy
patriarchs in ancient times numbered among the children of God? Yes; and
depending on this claim, they invoked God as their Father. But because,
since the introduction of the only begotten Son of God into the world, the
celestial paternity has been more clearly revealed, Paul mentions this as
the privilege of the kingdom of Christ. It must, however, be steadily
maintained, that God never was a Father, either to angels or to men, but
with reference to his only begotten Son; and especially that men, whom
their own iniquity renders odious to God, are his sons by gratuitous
adoption, because Christ is his Son by nature. Nor is there any force in
the cavil of Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God has
decreed in himself; because we are not here treating of figures, as
expiation was represented by the blood of the sacrifices: but as they
could not be the sons of God in reality, unless their adoption were
founded on this head, it is unreasonable to detract from the head, that
which is common to all the members. I go further: since the Scripture
calls angels “the children of God,”(1195) whose enjoyment of such high
dignity depended not on the future redemption, yet it is necessary that
Christ should precede them in order, seeing it is by him that they are
connected with the Father. I will briefly repeat this observation, and
apply the same to the human race. Since angels and men were originally
created in such a condition, that God was the common Father of both, if
there be any truth in the assertion of Paul, “that Christ was before all
things, the head of the body, and the first‐born of every creature, that
in all things he might have the preëminence,”(1196) I conceive I am right
in concluding, that he was also the Son of God before the creation of the
world.

VI. But if his filiation (so to speak) commenced at the time of his
manifestation in the flesh, it will follow that he was the Son also in
respect of his human nature. Servetus and other heretics maintain that
Christ, who appeared in the flesh, was the Son of God; because out of the
flesh he could not be entitled to this appellation. Now, let them answer
me, whether he be the Son according to both natures, and in respect of
both. So indeed they idly pretend; but Paul teaches us very differently.
We confess that Christ is called “the Son” in his human nature, not as the
faithful are, merely by adoption and grace, but the true and natural, and
therefore the only Son; that by this character he may be distinguished
from all others. For we, who are regenerated to a new life, are honoured
by God with the title of sons; but the appellation of “his true and only
begotten Son” he gives to Christ alone. But among such a multitude of
brethren, how can he be the only Son, unless he possess by nature what we
have received as a gift? And we extend this honour to the whole person of
the Mediator, that he who was born of the Virgin, and offered himself on
the cross as a victim to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God;
but nevertheless with respect to his Deity, as Paul suggests, when he says
that he was “separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised
afore, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God
with power.”(1197) When he distinctly denominates him the Son of David
according to the flesh, why should he particularly say that he was
declared to be the Son of God with power, unless he intended to suggest
that this dignity depended not on that flesh, but on something else? For
in the same sense in which he says in another place that “he was crucified
through weakness, yet that he liveth by the power of God,” so in this
passage he introduces the difference between the two natures. They
certainly must be constrained to admit, that as he has received of his
mother that which causes him to be called the Son of David, so he has from
his Father that which constitutes him the Son of God, and that this is
something distinct and different from his humanity. The Scripture
distinguishes him by two names, calling him sometimes “the Son of God,”
sometimes “the Son of man.” With respect to the latter, it cannot be
disputed that he is styled the “Son of man,” in conformity to the common
idiom of the Hebrew language, because he is one of the posterity of Adam.
I contend, on the other hand, that he is denominated “the Son of God” on
account of his Deity and eternal existence; because it is equally
reasonable that the appellation of “Son of God” should be referred to the
Divine nature, as that that of “Son of man” should be referred to the
human nature. In short, in the passage which I have cited, “that he, who
was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, was declared to be
the Son of God with power,” Paul intends the same as he teaches us in
another place, that “Christ, who as concerning the flesh came of the Jews,
is God blessed for ever.” But if the distinction of the two natures be
expressed in both these passages, by what authority will they deny that he
is the Son of God in respect of his Divine nature, who according to the
flesh is likewise the Son of man?

VII. They clamorously urge in support of their error that God is said “not
to have spared his own Son,”(1198) and that the angel directed that the
very same who was to be born of the Virgin, should be called “the Son of
the Highest.”(1199) But to prevent their glorying in so futile an
objection, let them accompany us in a brief examination of the validity of
their reasoning. For if it be rightly concluded, that he began to be the
Son of God at his conception, because he that is conceived is called his
Son, it will follow that he began to be the Word at his manifestation in
the flesh, because John tells us that “he declares that, which his hands
have handled, of the Word of life.”(1200) So when they read the following
address of the prophet, “Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me
that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting, or from the days of eternity,”(1201) what interpretation
will they be obliged to adopt, if they determine to pursue such a mode of
argumentation? For I have declared that we by no means coincide with
Nestorius, who imagined two Christs. According to our doctrine, Christ has
made us the sons of God, together with himself, by the privilege of a
fraternal union, because he is, in our nature which he assumed, the only
begotten Son of God. And Augustine judiciously apprizes us, “that it is an
illustrious mirror of the wonderful and singular grace of God, that Jesus
Christ, considered as man, obtained honour which he could not merit.” From
his very birth, therefore, was Christ adorned, even in his human nature,
with the dignity of being the Son of God. Yet in the unity of person we
must not imagine such a confusion, as to destroy that which is peculiar to
Deity. For it is no more unreasonable, that the eternal Word of God and
the man Christ Jesus, the two natures being united into one person, should
be called the Son of God in different senses, than that he should be
styled, in various respects, sometimes the Son of God, sometimes the Son
of man. Nor are we any more embarrassed with the other cavil of Servetus,
that before Christ appeared in the flesh, he is no where called the Son of
God, but in a figurative sense. For though the description of him then was
rather obscure, yet since it has now been clearly proved, that he was the
eternal God no otherwise than as he was the Word begotten of the eternal
Father, and that this name is applicable to him in the character of
Mediator which he has assumed, only because he is God manifested in the
flesh; and that God the Father would not have been thus denominated from
the beginning, unless there had even then been a mutual relation to the
Son, who is the source of all kindred or paternity in heaven and in
earth;(1202) the inference is clear, that even under the law and the
prophets he was the Son of God, before this name was commonly used in the
Church. If the contention be merely about the word, Solomon, in speaking
of the infinite sublimity of God, affirms his Son to be incomprehensible
as well as himself: “What is his name,” says he, “and what is his Son’s
name, if thou canst tell?”(1203) I am aware that this testimony will not
have sufficient weight with contentious persons, nor indeed do I lay much
stress on it, only that it fixes the charge of a malicious cavil on those
who deny that Christ is the Son of God, any otherwise than because he has
become man. It must also be remarked that all the most ancient writers
have with one accord so unequivocally asserted the same doctrine, that it
argues impudence equally ridiculous and detestable in those who dare to
represent us as opposing Irenæus and Tertullian, who both acknowledge that
Jesus Christ, who at length made a visible appearance, was always the
invisible Son of God.

VIII. But although Servetus has accumulated many horrible and monstrous
notions, to which some of his brethren, perhaps, would refuse to
subscribe, yet, whoever they are that acknowledge not Christ to be the Son
of God, except in the human nature, if we press them closely, we shall
find that this title is admitted by them on no other ground than because
he was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin; as the
Manichæans formerly pretended that man received his soul by emanation from
God, because it is said that God breathed into Adam the breath of
life.(1204) For they lay such stress on the name of Son, that they leave
no difference between the two natures, but tell us, in a confused manner,
that Christ is the Son of God, considered as man, because his human nature
was begotten by God. Thus the eternal generation of Wisdom, of which
Solomon speaks,(1205) is destroyed, and no notice is taken of the Deity in
the Mediator, or a phantom is substituted instead of his humanity. It
might indeed be useful to refute the grosser fallacies of Servetus, with
which he has fascinated himself and others, that the pious reader,
admonished by this example, may preserve himself within the bounds of
sobriety and modesty; yet I conceive this will be unnecessary here, as I
have already done it in a separate treatise. The substance of them all is,
that the Son of God was from the beginning an ideal existence, and that
even then he was predestinated to be a man who was to be the essential
image of God. Nor does he acknowledge any other word of God than what
consists in an external splendour. His generation he explains thus: that
there existed in God from the beginning a will to beget a Son, which was
carried into effect by his actual formation. He likewise confounds the
Spirit with the Word, by asserting that God distributed the invisible Word
and Spirit into body and soul. In short, he puts the prefiguration of
Christ in the place of his generation; and affirms that he who was then in
external appearance a shadowy Son, was at length begotten by the Word, to
which he attributes the properties of seed. Whence it will follow, that
the meanest animals are equally the children of God, because they were
created of the original seed of the Word of God. For though he compounds
Christ of three uncreated elements, to countenance the assertion that he
is begotten of the essence of God, yet he pretends him to have been the
first‐born among creatures in such a sense, that even inanimate
substances, according to their rank, possess the same essential Divinity.
And that he may not seem to despoil Christ of his Deity, he asserts that
his flesh is coëssential with God, and that the Word was made flesh by a
conversion of the humanity into Deity. Thus, while he cannot conceive
Christ to be the Son of God, unless his flesh proceeded from the essence
of God, and were reconverted into Deity, he annihilates the eternal
hypostasis of the Word, and deprives us of the Son of David, the promised
Redeemer. He frequently indeed repeats this, that the Son was begotten of
God by knowledge and predestination, but that at length he was made man of
those materials, which in the beginning appeared with God in the three
elements, and which afterwards appeared in the first light of the world,
in the cloud, and in the pillar of fire. Now, how shamefully he
contradicts himself, it would be too tedious to relate. From this summary
the judicious reader will conclude, that by the subtle fallacies of this
heretic, the hope of salvation is completely extinguished. For if the body
were the Deity itself, it would no longer be the temple of it. Now, we can
have no Redeemer, except him who became man, by being really begotten of
the seed of Abraham and David according to the flesh. Servetus makes a
very improper use of the language of John, that “the word was made flesh;”
for while it opposes the terror of Nestorius, it is as far from affording
the least countenance to this impious notion, which originated with
Eutyches. The sole design of the evangelist was, to assert the union of
the two natures in one person.

Chapter XV. The Consideration Of Christ’s Three Offices, Prophetical,
Regal, And Sacerdotal, Necessary To Our Knowing The End Of His Mission
From The Father, And The Benefits Which He Confers On Us.

It is a just observation of Augustine, that although heretics profess the
name of Christ, yet he is not a foundation to them in common with the
pious, but remains exclusively the foundation of the Church; because, on a
diligent consideration of what belongs to Christ, Christ will be found
among them only in name, not in reality. Thus the Papists in the present
age, although the name of the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, be
frequently in their mouths, yet since they are contented with the mere
name, and despoil him of his power and dignity, these words of Paul, “not
holding the head,”(1206) are truly applicable to them. Therefore, that
faith may find in Christ a solid ground of salvation, and so may rely on
him, it is proper for us to establish this principle, that the office
which was assigned to him by the Father consists of three parts. For he
was given as a Prophet, a King, and a Priest; though we should derive but
little benefit from an acquaintance with these names, unaccompanied with a
knowledge of their end and use. For they are likewise pronounced among the
Papists, but in a frigid and unprofitable manner, while they are ignorant
of what is included in each of these titles. We have before observed, that
although God sent prophets one after another in a continual succession,
and never left his people destitute of useful instruction, such as was
sufficient for salvation, yet the minds of the pious were always
persuaded, that the full light of understanding was not to be expected
till the advent of the Messiah. And that this opinion had even reached the
Samaritans, notwithstanding they had never been acquainted with the true
religion, appears from the speech of the woman: “When Messias is come, he
will tell us all things.”(1207) Nor had the Jews entertained this
sentiment without sufficient ground, but believed as they had been taught
by infallible oracles. One of the most remarkable is this passage of
Isaiah: “Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader
and commander to the people;”(1208) just as he had before styled him “the
Wonderful Counsellor.”(1209) In the same manner the apostle, with a view
to display the perfection of the evangelical doctrine, after having said,
that “God at sundry times and in divers manners spake unto the fathers by
the prophets,” adds, that he “hath in these last days spoken unto us by
his Son.”(1210) But because it was the office of all the prophets to keep
the Church in a state of suspense and expectation, and also to support it
till the advent of the Mediator, we therefore find the faithful
complaining, in their dispersion, that they were deprived of this ordinary
blessing: “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is
there among us any that knoweth how long.”(1211) At length, when Christ
was at no great distance, a time was prefixed for Daniel to seal up the
vision and prophecy, not only to authenticate the prediction it contained,
but in order that the faithful might patiently bear for a time the want of
prophets, because the plenitude and conclusion of all revelations was near
at hand.(1212)

II. Now, it is to be observed, that the appellation of “Christ” belongs to
these three offices. For we know that under the law not only priests and
kings, but prophets also, were anointed with holy oil. Hence the
celebrated title of “Messiah” was given to the promised Mediator. But
though I confess that he was called the Messiah with particular reference
to his kingdom, as I have already shown, yet the prophetical and
sacerdotal unctions have their respective places, and must not be
neglected by us. The former is expressly mentioned by Isaiah in these
words: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath
anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind
up the broken‐hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, to proclaim
the acceptable year of the Lord.”(1213) We see that he was anointed by the
Spirit, to be a preacher and witness of the grace of the Father; and that
not in a common manner; for he is distinguished from other teachers, who
held a similar office. And here again it must be remarked, that he
received this unction, not only for himself, that he might perform the
office of a teacher, but for his whole body, that the preaching of the
gospel might continually be attended with the power of the Spirit. But it
remains beyond all doubt, that by this perfection of doctrine which he has
introduced, he has put an end to all prophecies; so that they who, not
contented with the gospel, make any extraneous addition to it, are guilty
of derogating from his authority. For that voice, which thundered from
heaven, “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him,”(1214) has exalted him by a
peculiar privilege above all others. From the head this unction is
afterwards diffused over the members, according to the prediction of Joel:
“Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and see visions.”(1215) But
the declarations of Paul, that “he is made unto us wisdom,”(1216) and that
“in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”(1217) have
rather a different meaning; namely, that beside him there is nothing
useful to be known, and that they who by faith apprehend him as he is,
have embraced the whole infinitude of celestial blessings. For which
reason he writes in another place, “I determined not to know any thing
among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified;”(1218) which is perfectly
just, because it is unlawful to go beyond the simplicity of the gospel.
And the tendency of the prophetic dignity in Christ is, to assure us that
all the branches of perfect wisdom are included in the system of doctrine
which he has given us.

III. I come now to his kingdom, of which it would be useless to speak,
without first apprizing the reader, that it is of a spiritual nature;
because thence we may gather what is its use, and what advantage it
confers upon us, and in short all its power and eternity. The eternity,
which the angel in Daniel ascribes to the person of Christ, the angel in
Luke justly applies to the salvation of the people. But this also is
twofold, or is to be considered in two points of view; one extending to
the whole body of the Church, the other belonging to every individual
member. To the former must be referred the following passage in the
Psalms: “Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It
shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in
heaven.”(1219) There is no doubt that God here promises to be the
everlasting Governor and Defender of his Church, through the medium of his
Son. For the truth of this prophecy will only be found in Christ; since
immediately after the death of Solomon, the dignity of the kingdom
sustained a considerable degradation, the greater part of it, to the
disgrace of the family of David, being transferred to a private man, and
afterwards was diminished more and more, till at length it fell in a
melancholy and total ruin. The same sentiment is conveyed in this
exclamation of Isaiah: “Who shall declare his generation?”(1220) For when
he pronounces that Christ will survive after his death, he connects his
members with him. Therefore, whenever we hear that Christ is armed with
eternal power, let us remember, that this is the bulwark which supports
the perpetuity of the Church; that amidst the turbulent agitations with
which it is incessantly harassed, and amidst the painful and formidable
commotions which menace it with innumerable calamities, it may still be
preserved in safety. Thus, when David derides the presumption of the
enemies who attempt to break the yoke of God and of his Christ, and says,
that the kings and the people rage in vain, since he that dwelleth in the
heavens is sufficiently powerful to repel their violence,—he assures the
faithful of the perpetual preservation of the Church, and animates them to
entertain a cheerful hope, whenever it happens to be oppressed.(1221) So,
in another place, when, speaking in the name of God, he says, “Sit thou at
my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool,”(1222) he
apprizes us that though numerous and powerful enemies conspire to assault
the Church, yet they are not strong enough to prevail against that
immutable decree of God, by which he has constituted his Son an eternal
King. Whence it follows that it is impossible for the devil, with all the
assistance of the world, ever to destroy the Church, which is founded on
the eternal throne of Christ. Now, with respect to its particular use to
each individual, this same eternity ought to encourage our hope of a
blessed immortality; for we see that whatever is terrestrial and worldly
is temporary and perishable. Therefore, to raise our hope towards heaven,
Christ declares that his “kingdom is not of this world.”(1223) In a word,
whenever we hear that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, excited by this
declaration, we ought to penetrate to the hope of a better life, and as we
are now protected by the power of Christ, let us expect the full benefit
of this grace in the world to come.

IV. The truth of our observation, that it is impossible to perceive the
nature and advantages of the kingdom of Christ, unless we know it to be
spiritual, is sufficiently evident from a consideration of the hardship
and misery of our condition in the state of warfare under the cross, in
which we have to continue as long as we live. What advantage, then, could
accrue to us from being collected under the government of the heavenly
King, if the benefit of it were not to extend beyond the present state? It
ought therefore to be known, that whatever felicity is promised us in
Christ, consists not in external accommodations, such as a life of joy and
tranquillity, abundant wealth, security from every injury, and numerous
delights suited to our carnal desires, but that it is peculiar to the
heavenly state. As in the world the prosperous and desirable state of a
nation consists partly in domestic peace, and an abundance of all
blessings, and every good, and partly in strong bulwarks to secure it from
external violence, so Christ enriches his people with every thing
necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls, and arms them with
strength to enable them to stand invincible against all the assaults of
their spiritual foes. Whence we infer that he reigns rather for us than
for himself, and that both internally and externally; that being
replenished, as far as God knows to be necessary for us, with the gifts of
the Spirit, of which we are naturally destitute, we may perceive from
these first‐fruits that we are truly united to God, in order to our
perfect happiness; and in the next place, that, depending on the power of
the same Spirit, we may not doubt of being always victorious over the
devil, the world, and every kind of evil. This is implied in the answer of
Christ to the Pharisees, that as “the kingdom of God is within” us, it
“cometh not with observation.”(1224) For it is probable, that in
consequence of his having professed himself to be that King, under whom
the highest blessing of God was to be expected, they ludicrously desired
him to display the insignia of his dignity. But to prevent them, who had
otherwise too great a propensity to the world, from directing all their
attention to external pomp, he commands them to enter into their own
consciences, “for the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in
the Holy Ghost.”(1225) Here we are briefly taught what advantage results
to us from the kingdom of Christ. For since it is not terrestrial or
carnal, so as to be liable to corruption, but spiritual, it elevates us
even to eternal life, that we may patiently pass through this life in
afflictions, hunger, cold, contempt, reproaches, and other disagreeable
circumstances; contented with this single assurance, that our King will
never desert us, but will assist our necessities, till having completed
the term of our warfare, we shall be called to the triumph; for the rule
of his government is, to communicate to us whatever he has received of the
Father. Now, since he furnishes and arms us with his power, adorns us with
his beauty and magnificence, and enriches us with his wealth, hence we
derive most abundant cause for glorying, and even confidence, to enable us
to contend with intrepidity against the devil, sin, and death. In the last
place, since we are clothed with his righteousness, we may boldly rise
superior to all the reproaches of the world; and as he liberally
replenishes us with his favours, so we ought on our part to bring forth
fruit to his glory.

V. His regal unction, therefore, is not represented to us as composed of
oil and aromatic perfumes; but he is called “the Christ of God,”(1226)
because “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and
might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord,”(1227) rested
upon him. This is the “oil of gladness,” with which the Psalmist declares
him to have been “anointed above” his “fellows;”(1228) because, if he were
not possessed of such excellence, we should be all oppressed with poverty
and famine. And, as we have observed, he was not enriched on his own
private account, but that he might communicate his abundance to them who
are hungry and thirsty. For as it is said that the Father “giveth not the
Spirit by measure unto him,”(1229) so another passage expresses the
reason—“that of his fulness we might all receive, and grace for
grace.”(1230) From this source proceeds the munificence mentioned by Paul,
by which grace is variously distributed to the faithful, “according to the
measure of the gift of Christ.”(1231) These passages abundantly confirm
what I have said—that the kingdom of Christ consists in the Spirit, not in
terrestrial pleasures or pomps; and that, therefore, in order to be
partakers of it, we must renounce the world. A visible emblem of this
unction was displayed at the baptism of Christ, when the Holy Spirit
rested on him in the form of a dove. That the Holy Spirit and his gifts
are designated by the word unction, ought not to be esteemed either novel
or absurd, because we have no other support even for our animal life; but
especially as it respects the heavenly life, we have not a particle of
vigour in us, but what we have received from the Holy Spirit, who has
chosen his residence in Christ, that those heavenly riches, which we so
greatly need, may from him be copiously distributed to us. Now, as the
faithful stand invincible in the strength of their King, and are enriched
with his spiritual blessings, they are justly denominated Christians. But
to this eternity, of which we have spoken, there is nothing repugnant in
these expressions of Paul: “Then he shall deliver up the kingdom to God,
even the Father,” and “Then shall the Son himself be subject, that God may
be all in all.”(1232) He only intends, that in that perfect glory the
administration of the kingdom will not be the same as it is at present.
For the Father has given all power to the Son, that he may guide, nourish,
and sustain us by his hand, may guard us by his protection, and aid us in
all our necessities. Thus, during the period of our pilgrimage, while we
are absent from God, Christ interposes between us, to bring us by degrees
to a perfect union with him. His being said to sit at the right hand of
the Father, is equivalent to his being called the Father’s vicegerent,
intrusted with all the power of the government; because it is the will of
God to govern and defend his Church through the mediation of his Son. This
is the explanation given by Paul to the Ephesians, that he was “set at the
right hand of the Father, to be the head over all things to the Church,
which is his body.”(1233) To the same purpose is what he states in another
place, that there has been “given him a name which is above every name;
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.”(1234) For even in these words he displays the order in the
kingdom of Christ necessary for our present infirmity. Thus Paul rightly
concludes, that God himself will then be the only head of the Church,
because the functions of Christ in the preservation and salvation of the
Church will be fully discharged. For the same reason the Scripture often
styles him Lord, because the Father has given him authority over us, that
he may exercise his own dominion by the agency of his Son. “For though
there be” many authorities celebrated in the world, “to us there is but
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,”(1235) says Paul.
Whence it may justly be concluded, that he is the same God, who by the
mouth of Isaiah has asserted himself to be the King and Lawgiver of his
Church.(1236) For though he every where ascribes all the authority he
possesses to the free gift of the Father, yet he only signifies that he
reigns in the majesty and power of God; because he assumed the character
of Mediator, in order to approach to us by descending from the bosom and
incomprehensible glory of his Father. Wherefore it is the more reasonable
that we should all with one consent be ready to obey him, and with the
greatest alacrity conform all our services to his will. For as he combines
the offices of a King and a Shepherd towards the faithful who yield a
voluntary obedience, so, on the contrary, we are informed, that he bears
“a rod of iron” to “break” all the stubborn and rebellious, and to “dash
them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”(1237) It is likewise predicted
that “he shall judge among the heathen; he shall fill the places with the
dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.”(1238) Of this
there are some instances to be seen in the present state, but the complete
accomplishment of it will be at the last judgment, which may also with
propriety be considered as the last act of his reign.

VI. Concerning his priesthood, we have briefly to remark, that the end and
use of it is, that he may be a Mediator pure from every stain, and by his
holiness may render us acceptable to God. But because the righteous curse
prevents our access to him, and God in his character of Judge is offended
with us,—in order that our Priest may appease the wrath of God, and
procure his favour for us, there is a necessity for the intervention of an
atonement. Wherefore, that Christ might perform this office, it was
necessary for him to appear with a sacrifice. For even under the law the
priest was not permitted to enter the sanctuary without blood; that the
faithful might know, that notwithstanding the interposition of the Priest
as an intercessor, yet it was impossible for God to be propitiated without
the expiation of sins. This subject the apostle discusses at large in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, from the seventh chapter almost to the end of the
tenth. But the sum of the whole is this—that the sacerdotal dignity
belongs exclusively to Christ, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he
has abolished our guilt, and made satisfaction for our sins. The vast
importance of this we are taught by that solemn oath which “the Lord hath
sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of
Melchisedec.”(1239) For there is no doubt that God intended to establish
that capital point, which he knew to be the principal hinge on which our
salvation turns. And as we have observed, there is no access to God,
either for ourselves or our prayers, unless our Priest sanctify us by
taking away our sins, and obtain for us that grace from which we are
excluded by the pollution of our vices and crimes. Thus, we see, it is
necessary to begin with the death of Christ, in order to experience the
efficacy and utility of his priesthood. Hence it follows, that he is an
eternal intercessor, and that it is by his intervention we obtain favour
with God. Hence proceeds not only confidence in prayer, but also
tranquillity to the consciences of the faithful; while they recline in
safety on the paternal indulgence of God, and are certainly persuaded,
that he is pleased with whatever is consecrated to him through the
Mediator. Now, as under the law God commanded victims to be offered to him
from the flock and the herd, a new and different method has been adopted
in the case of Christ, that the sacrifice should be the same with the
priest; because it was impossible to find any other adequate satisfaction
for sins, or any one worthy of so great an honour as to offer to God his
only begotten Son. Besides, Christ sustains the character of a Priest, not
only to render the Father favourable and propitious to us by an eternal
law of reconciliation, but also to associate us with himself in so great
an honour. For we, who are polluted in ourselves, being “made
priests”(1240) in him, offer ourselves and all our services to God, and
enter boldly into the heavenly sanctuary, so that the sacrifices of
prayers and praise, which proceed from us, are “acceptable,” and “a sweet‐
smelling savour”(1241) in the Divine presence. This is included in the
declaration of Christ, “For their sakes I sanctify myself;”(1242) for
being arrayed in his holiness, he having dedicated us, together with
himself, to the Father, we, who are otherwise offensive in his sight,
become acceptable to him, as pure, unpolluted, and holy. This is the
meaning of the “anointing of the Most Holy,”(1243) which is mentioned in
Daniel. For we must observe the contrast between this unction and that
shadowy unction which was then in use; as though the angel had said, that
the shadows would be dissipated, and that there would be a real priesthood
in the person of Christ. So much the more detestable is the invention of
those, who, not content with the priesthood of Christ, have presumed to
take upon themselves the office of sacrificing him; which is daily
attempted among the Papists, where the mass is considered as an immolation
of Christ.

Chapter XVI. Christ’s Execution Of The Office Of A Redeemer To Procure Our
Salvation. His Death, Resurrection, And Ascension To Heaven.

All that we have hitherto advanced concerning Christ is to be referred to
this point, that being condemned, dead, and ruined in ourselves, we should
seek righteousness, deliverance, life, and salvation in him; as we are
taught by this remarkable declaration of Peter, that “there is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”(1244) The
name of JESUS was given him, not rashly or by a fortuitous accident, or by
the will of men, but was brought from heaven by the angel, the herald of
the supreme decree, and also with this reason annexed to it: “for he shall
save his people from their sins;”(1245) in which words may be remarked,
what we have before hinted, that the office of a Redeemer was assigned to
him in order that he might be our Saviour. Nevertheless, the redemption
would be incomplete, if he did not by continual advances carry us forward
to the ultimate end of salvation. Therefore, as soon as we deviate from
him, though but in the smallest degree, we gradually lose sight of
salvation, which resides entirely in him; so that those who are not
satisfied with him, voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace. And the
following observation of Bernard is worthy of recital: “that the name of
Jesus is not only light, but also food; that it is likewise oil, without
which all the food of the soul is dry; that it is salt, unseasoned by
which, whatever is presented to us is insipid; finally, that it is honey
in the mouth, melody in the ear, joy in the heart, and medicine to the
soul; and that there are no charms in any discourse where his name is not
heard.” But here we ought diligently to examine how he has procured
salvation for us; that we may not only know him to be the author of it,
but, embracing those things which are sufficient for the establishment of
our faith, may reject every thing capable of drawing us aside to the right
hand or to the left. For since no man can descend into himself and
seriously consider his own character, without perceiving that God is angry
with him and hostile to him, and consequently he must find himself under a
necessity of anxiously seeking some way to appease him, which can never be
done without a satisfaction,—this is a case in which the strongest
assurance is required. For sinners, till they be delivered from guilt, are
always subject to the wrath and malediction of God, who, being a righteous
Judge, never suffers his law to be violated with impunity, but stands
prepared to avenge it.

II. Before we proceed any further, let us examine, by the way, how it
could be consistent, that God, who prevents us with his mercy, should be
our enemy, till he was reconciled to us by Christ. For how could he have
given us a special pledge of his love in his only begotten Son, if he had
not previously embraced us in his gratuitous favour? As there is some
appearance of contradiction, therefore, in this representation, I shall
solve the difficulty. The Spirit speaks in the Scriptures nearly in this
manner—That God was an enemy to men, till by the death of Christ they were
restored to his favour;(1246) that they were under the curse till their
iniquity was expiated by his sacrifice;(1247) that they were separated
from God, till they were restored to union with him by the body of
Christ.(1248) Such modes of expression are accommodated to our capacity,
that we may better understand how miserable and calamitous our condition
is, out of Christ. For if it were not clearly expressed, that we are
obnoxious to the wrath and vengeance of God, and to eternal death, we
should not so fully discover how miserable we must be without the Divine
mercy, nor should we so highly estimate the blessing of deliverance. For
example; let any man be addressed in the following manner: “If, while you
remained a sinner, God had hated you, and rejected you according to your
demerits, horrible destruction would have befallen you; but because he has
voluntarily, and of his own gratuitous kindness, retained you in his
favour, and not permitted you to be alienated from him, he has thus
delivered you from that danger;” he will be affected, and will in some
measure perceive how much he is indebted to the Divine mercy. But if, on
the contrary, he be told, what the Scripture teaches, “that he was
alienated from God by sin, an heir of wrath, obnoxious to the punishment
of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a total stranger to
the Divine blessing, a slave to Satan, a captive under the yoke of sin,
and, in a word, condemned to, and already involved in, a horrible
destruction; that in this situation, Christ interposed as an intercessor;
that he has taken upon himself and suffered the punishment which by the
righteous judgment of God impended over all sinners; that by his blood he
has expiated those crimes which render them odious to God; that by this
expiation God the Father has been satisfied and duly atoned; that by this
intercessor his wrath has been appeased; that this is the foundation of
peace between God and men; that this is the bond of his benevolence
towards them;” will he not be the more affected by these things in
proportion to the more correct and lively representation of the depth of
calamity from which he has been delivered? In short, since it is
impossible for the life which is presented by the mercy of God, to be
embraced by our hearts with sufficient ardour, or received with becoming
gratitude, unless we have been previously terrified and distressed with
the fear of the Divine wrath, and the horror of eternal death, we are
instructed by the sacred doctrine, that irrespective of Christ we may
contemplate God as in some measure incensed against us, and his hand armed
for our destruction, and that we may embrace his benevolence and paternal
love only in Christ.

III. Now, though this is expressed according to the weakness of our
capacity, yet it is strictly true. For God, who is the perfection of
righteousness, cannot love iniquity, which he beholds in us all. We all,
therefore, have in us that which deserves God’s hatred. Wherefore, in
respect of our corrupt nature, and the succeeding depravity of our lives,
we are all really offensive to God, guilty in his sight, and born to the
damnation of hell. But because the Lord will not lose in us that which is
his own, he yet discovers something that his goodness may love. For
notwithstanding we are sinners through our own fault, yet we are still his
creatures; notwithstanding we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he
had created us for life. Thus, by a pure and gratuitous love towards us,
he is excited to receive us into favour. But if there is a perpetual and
irreconcilable opposition between righteousness and iniquity, he cannot
receive us entirely, as long as we remain sinners. Therefore, to remove
all occasion of enmity, and to reconcile us completely to himself, he
abolishes all our guilt, by the expiation exhibited in the death of
Christ, that we, who before were polluted and impure, may appear righteous
and holy in his sight. The love of God the Father therefore precedes our
reconciliation in Christ; or rather it is because he first loves, that he
afterwards reconciles us to himself.(1249) But because, till Christ
relieves us by his death, we are not freed from that iniquity which
deserves the indignation of God, and is accursed and condemned in his
sight; we have not a complete and solid union with God, before we are
united to him by Christ. And therefore, if we would assure ourselves that
God is pacified and propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and hearts on
Christ alone, since it is by him only that we really obtain the non‐
imputation of sins, the imputation of which is connected with the Divine
wrath.

IV. For this reason Paul says, that the love which God had for us before
the creation of the world, was founded on Christ.(1250) This doctrine is
clear, and consistent with the Scripture, and admirably reconciles the
different passages, where it is said, that God manifested his love to us
by the gift of his only begotten Son,(1251) and yet that he was our enemy
till he was reconciled by the death of Christ.(1252) But for a further
confirmation of it, to such as require the testimony of the ancient
Church, I will cite a passage from Augustine, which expressly maintains
the same. “The love of God,” says he, “is incomprehensible and immutable.
For he did not begin to love us when we were reconciled to him by the
blood of his Son, but he loved us before the creation of the world, that
we might be his children, together with his only begotten Son, even before
we had any existence. Therefore our reconciliation by the death of Christ
must not be understood as if he reconciled us to God, that God might begin
to love those whom he had before hated; but we are reconciled to him who
already loved us, but with whom we were at enmity on account of sin. And
whether my assertion be true, let the apostle attest. ‘God,’ says he,
‘commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us.’(1253) He loved us, therefore, even when we were in the
exercise of enmity against him, and engaged in the practice of iniquity.
Wherefore, in a wonderful and Divine manner, he both hated and loved us at
the same time. He hated us, as being different from what he had made us;
but as our iniquity had not entirely destroyed his work in us, he could at
the same time in every one of us hate what we had done, and love what
proceeded from himself.” This is the language of Augustine.

V. Now, in answer to the inquiry, how Christ, by the abolition of our
sins, has destroyed the enmity between God and us, and procured a
righteousness to render him favourable and propitious to us, it may be
replied in general, that he accomplished it for us by the whole course of
his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul. “As by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous.”(1254) And indeed in another place he extends the cause
of the pardon, which exempts us from the malediction of the law, to the
whole life of Christ. “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law.”(1255) Thus he himself affirmed even his baptism to be
a branch of his righteousness, because he acted in obedience to the
command of the Father.(1256) In short, from the time of his assuming the
character of a servant, he began to pay the price of our deliverance in
order to redeem us. Yet more precisely to define the means of our
salvation, the Scripture ascribes this in a peculiar manner to the death
of Christ. He himself announces, that he “gives his life a ransom for
many.”(1257) Paul teaches that “he died for our sins.”(1258) John the
Baptist exclaims, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world!”(1259) Paul in another place declares, that we are “justified
freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.”(1260)
Also that we are “justified by his blood,” and “reconciled by his
death.”(1261) Again: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1262) I shall not
proceed with all the proofs, because the catalogue would be immense, and
many of them must hereafter be cited in their proper order. Wherefore, in
what is called the Apostles’ Creed, there is very properly an immediate
transition from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in
which the sum of perfect salvation consists. Yet there is no exclusion of
the rest of the obedience which he performed in his life; as Paul
comprehends the whole of it, from the beginning to the end, when he says,
that “he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross.”(1263) And indeed his voluntary submission is the principal
circumstance even in his death; because the sacrifice, unless freely
offered, would have been unavailable to the acquisition of righteousness.
Therefore our Lord, after having declared, “I lay down my life for the
sheep,” expressly adds, “No man taketh it from me.”(1264) In which sense
Isaiah says, “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not
his mouth.”(1265) And the evangelical history relates, that he went forth
to meet the soldiers,(1266) and that before Pilate he neglected making any
defence, and waited to submit to the sentence.(1267) Nor was this without
inward conflict, because he had taken our infirmities, and it was
necessary to give this proof of his obedience to his Father. And it was no
mean specimen of his incomparable love to us, to contend with horrible
fear, and amid those dreadful torments to neglect all care of himself,
that he might promote our benefit. Indeed we must admit, that it was
impossible for God to be truly appeased in any other way, than by Christ
renouncing all concern for himself, and submitting and devoting himself
entirely to his will. On this subject the apostle appositely cites the
testimony of the Psalmist: “Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the
book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law
is within my heart.”(1268) But since terrified consciences find no rest
but in a sacrifice and ablution to expiate their sins, we are properly
directed thither, and the death of Christ is exhibited to us as the source
of life. Now, because our guilt rendered us liable to a curse at the
heavenly tribunal of God, the condemnation of Christ before Pontius
Pilate, the governor of Judea, is stated in the first place, that we may
know that on this righteous person was inflicted the punishment which
belonged to us. We could not escape the terrible judgment of God; to
deliver us from it, Christ submitted to be condemned even before a wicked
and profane mortal. For the name of the governor is mentioned, not only to
establish the credit of the history, but that we may learn, what is taught
by Isaiah, that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes we are healed.”(1269) For to supersede our condemnation it was not
sufficient for him to suffer any kind of death; but, to accomplish our
redemption, that kind of death was to be chosen, by which, both sustaining
our condemnation and atoning for our sins, he might deliver us from both.
Had he been assassinated by robbers, or murdered in a popular tumult, in
such a death there would have been no appearance of satisfaction. But when
he is placed as a criminal before the tribunal,—when he is accused and
overpowered by the testimony of witnesses, and by the mouth of the judge
is condemned to die,—we understand from these circumstances, that he
sustained the character of a malefactor. And we shall remark two things
which were foretold in the predictions of the prophets, and afford
peculiar consolation and confirmation to our faith. For when we are told,
that Christ was sent from the tribunal of the judge to the place of
execution, and suspended between two thieves, we see the completion of
that prophecy, which is cited by the Evangelist, “He was numbered with the
transgressors.”(1270) For what reason? to sustain the character of a
sinner, not of a righteous or innocent person. For he died, not for his
innocence, but on account of sin. On the contrary, when we hear him
absolved by the same mouth by which he was condemned, (for Pilate was
constrained repeatedly to give a public testimony of his innocence,)(1271)
let it remind us of what we read in another prophet: “I restored that
which I took not away.”(1272) Thus we shall behold Christ sustaining the
character of a sinner and malefactor, while from the lustre of his
innocence it will at the same time evidently appear, that he was loaded
with the guilt of others, but had none of his own. He suffered, then,
under Pontius Pilate, after having been condemned as a criminal by the
solemn sentence of the governor; yet not in such a manner, but that he was
at the same time pronounced to be righteous, by the declaration of the
same judge, that he found in him no cause of accusation. This is our
absolution, that the guilt, which made us obnoxious to punishment, is
transferred to the person of the Son of God. For we ought particularly to
remember this satisfaction, that we may not spend our whole lives in
terror and anxiety, as though we were pursued by the righteous vengeance
of God, which the Son of God has transferred to himself.

VI. Moreover, the species of death which he suffered, is fraught with a
peculiar mystery. The cross was accursed, not only in the opinion of men,
but by the decree of the Divine law. Therefore, when Christ is lifted up
upon it, he renders himself obnoxious to the curse. And this was necessary
to be done, that by this transfer we might be delivered from every curse
which awaited us, or rather was already inflicted upon us, on account of
our iniquities. This was also prefigured in the law. For the victims and
expiations offered for sins were called אשמות, a word which properly
signifies sin itself. By this appellation the Spirit intended to suggest
that they were vicarious sacrifices, to receive and sustain the curse due
to sin. But that which was figuratively represented in the Mosaic
sacrifices, is actually exhibited in Christ, the archetype of the figures.
Wherefore, in order to effect a complete expiation, he gave his soul אשם,
that is, _an atoning sacrifice for sin_,(1273) as the prophet says; so
that our guilt and punishment being as it were transferred to him, they
must cease to be imputed to us. The apostle more explicitly testifies the
same, when he says, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1274) For the Son
of God, though perfectly free from all sin, nevertheless assumed the
disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and, on the other hand, arrayed
us in his purity. He appears to have intended the same, when he says
concerning sin, that it was “condemned in the flesh,”(1275) that is, in
Christ. For the Father destroyed the power of sin, when the curse of it
was transferred to the body of Christ. This expression therefore
indicates, that Christ at his death was offered to the Father as an
expiatory sacrifice, in order that, a complete atonement being made by his
oblation, we may no longer dread the Divine wrath. Now, it is evident what
the prophet meant, when he said, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all;”(1276) namely, that when he was about to expiate our sins, they
were transferred to him by imputation. The cross, to which he was fixed,
was a symbol of this, as the apostle informs us: “Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written,
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; that the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.”(1277) Peter alluded to
the same, where he said, “He bare our sins in his own body on the
tree;”(1278) because from the visible symbol of the curse, we more clearly
apprehend, that the burden, with which we were oppressed, was imposed on
him. Nor must we conceive that he submitted to a curse which overwhelmed
him, but, on the contrary, that by sustaining it, he depressed, broke, and
destroyed all its power. Wherefore faith apprehends an absolution in the
condemnation of Christ, and a benediction in his curse. It is not without
reason, therefore, that Paul magnificently proclaims the triumph which
Christ gained for himself on the cross; as though the cross, which was
full of ignominy, had been converted into a triumphal chariot. For he
says, that “he nailed to his cross the hand‐writing, which was contrary to
us, and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them
openly.”(1279) Nor should this surprise us; for, according to the
testimony of another apostle, “Christ offered himself through the eternal
Spirit.”(1280) Hence arose that change of the nature of things. But that
these things may be deeply rooted and firmly fixed in our hearts, let us
always remember his sacrifice and ablution. For we certainly could have no
confidence that Christ was our (απολυτρωσις,(1281) και αντιλυτρον,(1282)
και ἱλαστηριον,)(1283) redemption, ransom, and propitiation, if he had not
been a slaughtered victim. And for this reason it is, that when the
Scripture exhibits the method of redemption, it so often makes mention of
blood; though the blood shed by Christ has not only served as an atonement
to God, but likewise as a laver to purge away our pollutions.

VII. It follows in the Creed, “that he died and was buried;” in which may
be further seen, how in every respect he substituted himself in our room
to pay the price of our redemption. Death held us in bondage under his
yoke; Christ, to deliver us from it, surrendered himself to his power in
our stead. This is the meaning of the apostle, when he says, that “he
tasted death for every man.”(1284) For by his death he prevented us from
dying, or, which comes to the same thing, by his death recovered life for
us. But in this respect he differed from us—he surrendered himself to
death to be, as it were, overcome by it, not that he might be absorbed in
its abysses, but rather that he might destroy that, by which we should
have been at length devoured; he surrendered himself to death to be
subdued, not that he might be overwhelmed by its power, but rather that he
might overthrow that which threatened us, which indeed had already
overcome us, and was triumphing over us. Lastly, he died, “that he might
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver
them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
bondage.”(1285) This is the first benefit we have received from his death.
The second is, that, by a communication of himself, he “mortifies” our
“members which are upon the earth,”(1286) that they may no longer perform
their own actions; and slays our old man, that it may not flourish and
bear fruit any more. The burial of Christ has the same tendency, namely,
that being made partakers of it, we may be buried to sin. For when the
apostle teaches us that “we have been planted in the likeness of the death
of Christ, and buried with him,”(1287) to the death of sin; that “by his
cross the world is crucified” unto us, and we “unto the world;”(1288) and
that we “are dead with him;”(1289) he not only exhorts us to imitate the
example of his death, but declares that it contains such an efficacy, as
ought to be conspicuous in all Christians, unless they wish to render that
death ineffectual and useless. In the death and burial of Christ,
therefore, we have a twofold benefit proposed to our enjoyment—deliverance
from the thraldom of death, and the mortification of our flesh.

VIII. But it is not right to omit his “descent into hell,” which is of no
small importance towards the accomplishment of redemption. For though it
appears from the writings of the ancients, that this article of the Creed
was not always in common use in the churches, yet in discussing a system
of doctrine, it is necessary to introduce it, as containing a mystery
highly useful, and by no means to be despised. Indeed, there are some of
the ancients who do not omit it. Hence we may conjecture that it was
inserted a little after the days of the apostles, and was not immediately
but gradually received in the churches. This at least cannot be
controverted, that it was agreeable to the general opinion of all the
faithful; since there is not one of the fathers, who does not mention in
his writings the descent of Christ into hell, though they explain it in
different senses. But by whom, or at what period, it was first inserted,
is of little consequence; it is of more importance that the Creed should
present us a full and complete summary of faith, into which nothing should
be inserted, but what is taken from God’s most holy word. Yet if any
morosely refuse to admit it into the Creed, it shall presently be proved
to be so necessary to the perfection of our redemption, that the omission
of it considerably lessens the benefit of the death of Christ. Some,
again, are of opinion, that this clause contains nothing new, but is only
a repetition, in other words, of what had before been said respecting his
burial; because the word here rendered “hell” is frequently used in the
Scriptures to signify the grave. I admit the truth of their observation
respecting the signification of this word, that it is frequently to be
understood of the “grave;” but their opinion is opposed by two reasons,
which easily induce me to dissent from them. For what extreme carelessness
it would betray, after a plain fact had been stated in the most explicit
and familiar manner, to assert it a second time in an obscure combination
of words calculated rather to perplex than to elucidate it! For when two
phrases expressive of the same thing are connected together, the latter
ought to be an explanation of the former. But what an explanation would
this be, if one were to express it thus: “When Christ is said to have been
buried, the meaning is, that he descended into hell!” Besides, it is not
probable that such a superfluous tautology could have found its way into
this compendium, in which the principal articles of faith are summarily
expressed with the utmost possible brevity. And I doubt not, that all who
have considered this point with any attention will easily assent to what I
have advanced.

IX. Others give a different interpretation; that Christ descended to the
souls of the fathers who had died under the law, for the purpose of
announcing the accomplishment of redemption, and liberating them from the
prison in which they were confined. To this purpose they pervert a passage
in the psalms, that “he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars
of iron in sunder;”(1290) and another in Zechariah, “I have sent forth thy
prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.”(1291) But since the
Psalmist celebrates the liberation of those who are suffering captivity
and imprisonment in distant countries; and Zechariah compares the
destruction in which the people had been overwhelmed in Babylon, to a dry
pit or abyss; and at the same time suggests, that the salvation of the
whole Church is a deliverance from the abysses of hell; I know not how it
came to pass, that posterity should imagine a subterraneous cavern, to
which they have given the name of Limbus. But this fable, although it is
maintained by great authors, and even in the present age is by many
seriously defended as a truth, is after all nothing but a fable. For to
confine the souls of the dead in a prison, is quite puerile; but what
necessity was there for Christ to descend thither in order to liberate
them? I freely confess, indeed, that Christ illuminated them by the power
of his Spirit; that they might know that the grace, which they had only
tasted by hope, was then exhibited to the world. And probably to this we
may accommodate that passage of Peter, where he says, that Christ “went
and preached unto the spirits who were keeping watch as in a tower.”(1292)
This is generally rendered “the spirits in prison,” but I conceive
improperly. The context also gives us to understand, that the faithful who
had died before that time, were partakers of the same grace with us. For
the apostle amplifies the efficacy of the death of Christ from this
consideration, that it penetrated even to the dead; when the souls of the
faithful enjoyed the present view of that visitation which they had been
anxiously expecting; whilst, on the contrary, it was more clearly
discovered to the reprobate, that they were excluded from all salvation.
But since Peter has not spoken in this distinct manner of the pious and
the impious, we must not understand him as confounding them all together,
without any discrimination. He only designs to inform us, that the
knowledge of the death of Christ was common to them both.

X. But laying aside all consideration of the Creed, we have to seek for a
more certain explanation of the descent of Christ into hell; and we find
one in the Divine word, not only holy and pious, but likewise replete with
singular consolation. If Christ had merely died a corporeal death, no end
would have been accomplished by it; it was requisite, also, that he should
feel the severity of the Divine vengeance, in order to appease the wrath
of God, and satisfy his justice. Hence it was necessary for him to contend
with the powers of hell and the horror of eternal death. We have already
stated from the prophet, that “the chastisement of our peace was upon
him,” that “he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our
iniquities;”(1293) the meaning of which is, that he was made a substitute
and surety for transgressors, and even treated as a criminal himself, to
sustain all the punishments which would have been inflicted on them; only
with this exception, that “it was not possible that he should be holden of
the pains of death.”(1294) Therefore it is no wonder, if he be said to
have descended into hell, since he suffered that death which the wrath of
God inflicts on transgressors. It is a very frivolous and even ridiculous
objection to say that by this explanation the order of things is
perverted, because it is absurd to make that subsequent to his burial,
which really preceded it. For the relation of those sufferings of Christ,
which were visible to men, is very properly followed by that invisible and
incomprehensible vengeance which he suffered from the hand of God; in
order to assure us that not only the body of Christ was given as the price
of our redemption, but that there was another greater and more excellent
ransom, since he suffered in his soul the dreadful torments of a person
condemned and irretrievably lost.

XI. In this sense Peter says, that “God raised him up, having loosed the
pains of death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of
it.”(1295) He does not say simply “death;” but tells us, that the Son of
God was involved in “the pains of death,” which proceed from the Divine
wrath and malediction, which is the origin of death. For what a little
thing it would have been for Christ to appear in order to suffer death,
without any distress or perplexity, and even with pleasure! But this was a
true specimen of his infinite mercy, not to evade that death which he so
much dreaded. Nor can it be doubted, but the apostle means to suggest the
same in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says, that Christ “was heard
in that he feared.”(1296) Some, instead of fear, translate it reverence or
piety; but how improperly, is evident from the subject itself, and also
from the form of expression. Christ, therefore, “when he offered up
prayers with strong crying and tears, was heard in that he feared;” not
that he might obtain an exemption from death, but that he might not be
swallowed up by it as a sinner; for he was then sustaining our character.
And it is certainly impossible to imagine any more formidable abyss, than
to perceive ourselves forsaken and abandoned by God, and not to be heard
when we call upon him, as though he had conspired to destroy us. Now, we
see Christ was so deeply dejected, that in the urgency of distress, he was
constrained to exclaim, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(1297)
For the idea of some, that he spoke rather according to the opinion of
others than from his own feelings, is utterly improbable; since he
evidently appears to have spoken from the anguish of his inmost soul. We
do not admit that God was ever hostile to him, or angry with him. For how
could he be angry with his beloved Son, “in whom his soul
delighted?”(1298) or how could Christ, by his intercession, appease the
Father for others, if the Father were incensed against him? But we affirm,
that he sustained the weight of the Divine severity; since, being “smitten
and afflicted of God,”(1299) he experienced from God all the tokens of
wrath and vengeance. Wherefore, Hilary argues, that by this descent we
have obtained the destruction of death. And in other places he accords
with our opinion; as when he says, “The cross, death, and hell, are our
life.” Again, in another place, “The Son of God is in hell, but man is
raised to heaven.” But why do I cite the testimony of a private person,
when the apostle asserts the same thing, mentioning, as the reward of
Christ’s victory, the deliverance of them “who, through fear of death,
were all their lifetime subject to bondage?”(1300) It was necessary,
therefore, that he should overcome that fear, which naturally and
incessantly harasses all men; which he could not do without contending
with it. Now, that his was not a common or trivial sorrow, will soon be
more clearly evinced. Thus, by contending with the power of the devil,
with the dread of death, and with the pains of hell, he obtained the
victory, and triumphed over them, that in death we may no longer dread
those things which our Prince has destroyed.

XII. Here some contentious, though illiterate men, impelled rather by
malice than by ignorance, exclaim against me, that I am guilty of an
atrocious injury to Christ; because it is utterly unreasonable that he
should have any fear concerning the salvation of his soul. And then they
aggravate the cavil, by pretending that I attribute despair to the Son of
God, which is contrary to faith. In the first place, it is presumptuous in
them to raise a controversy concerning the fear and consternation of
Christ, which is so expressly asserted by the evangelists. For, before the
approach of his death, he experienced a perturbation of spirit and
depression of mind; but, in the actual struggle with it, he began to feel
a greater degree of consternation. If they say that this was only
pretence, it is a most paltry subterfuge. We ought, therefore, as Ambrose
justly advises, fearlessly to acknowledge the sorrow of Christ, unless we
are ashamed of his cross. And, indeed, if his soul had experienced no
punishment, he would have been only a Redeemer for the body. It was
necessary for him to combat, in order to raise up those who lay prostrate
on the earth; and his heavenly glory is so far from being diminished by
this, that his goodness, which is never sufficiently celebrated, is
conspicuous in his voluntary and unreluctant assumption of our
infirmities. Hence that consolation which the apostle offers us under our
anxieties and sorrows, that this Mediator has experienced our infirmities,
in order that he might be the more ready to succour the wretched.(1301)
They pretend, that what is intrinsically bad cannot be justly attributed
to Christ; as though they were wiser than the Spirit of God, who connects
these two things together, that Christ “was in all points tempted like as
we are, yet without sin.” We have no reason, therefore, to be alarmed by
the infirmity of Christ, to which he was not compelled by violence or
necessity, but induced merely by his mercy and love for us voluntarily to
submit himself. But none of his voluntary sufferings for us have been any
diminution of his power. These captious objectors, however, are deceived
in one point; they do not perceive that this infirmity in Christ was
perfectly free from every stain of guilt, because he always kept himself
within the limits of obedience. For, because no moderation can be
discovered in the corruption of our nature, where all our passions
transgress all bounds with impetuous violence, they erroneously measure
the Son of God by this standard. But he being innocent, and free from
every defect, all his affections were governed by a moderation which
admitted of no excess. Whence it was very possible for him to resemble us
in sorrow, fear, and dread, and yet, in this respect, to be very different
from us. Refuted here, they proceed to another cavil; that, although
Christ was afraid of death, yet he was not afraid of the malediction and
wrath of God, from which he knew himself to be safe. But let the pious
reader consider how much honour it reflects on Christ, that he was more
delicate and timorous than the generality of mankind. Robbers and other
malefactors obstinately rush forward to death; many men nobly despise it;
others calmly submit to it. But what constancy or magnanimity would the
Son of God have discovered, in being astonished and almost struck dead
with the fear of it? For it is related of him, what might generally be
accounted a prodigy, that through the vehemence of his agonies, drops of
blood flowed from his face. Nor did he exhibit this spectacle to the eyes
of others; he sent up his groans to his Father, in the secrecy of
retirement. And every doubt is removed by the necessity that there was for
angels to descend from heaven, to support him with unusual consolation.
What disgraceful effeminacy, as I have suggested, would this have been, to
be so distressed by the fear of a common death, as to be in a bloody
sweat, and incapable of being comforted without the presence of angels!
What! does not this prayer, which he repeated three times, “O my Father,
if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,”(1302) proceeding from an
incredible bitterness of soul, demonstrate that Christ had a more severe
and arduous conflict than with a common death? Whence it appears, that
those triflers, with whom I am now disputing, presumptuously chatter about
things which they know not; because they never seriously considered the
nature or the importance of our redemption from the Divine judgment. But
it is our wisdom to have a clear understanding how much our salvation cost
the Son of God. If any one inquire whether Christ was then descending to
hell, when he deprecated death, I reply, that this was the prelude to it;
whence we may conclude what dreadful and horrible agonies he must have
suffered, while he was conscious of standing at the tribunal of God
accused as a criminal on our account. But, although the Divine power of
the Spirit concealed itself for a moment, to give place to the infirmity
of the flesh, yet we know, that the temptation arising from a sense of
grief and fear was such as was not repugnant to faith. And thus was
fulfilled what we find in the sermon of Peter, “that it was not possible
that he should be holden of the pains of death;”(1303) because, when he
perceived himself, as it were, deserted by God, still he relaxed not in
the least from his confidence in his Father’s goodness. This is evident
from his celebrated invocation, when, through the vehemence of grief, he
exclaimed, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(1304) For
notwithstanding his extreme agony, yet he continues to call God _his_ God,
even when he complains that he is forsaken by him. Now, this serves to
refute the error of Apollinaris, and also of those who were called
Monothelites. Apollinaris pretended that the eternal Spirit supplied the
place of a soul in Christ, so that he was but half a man, as though he
could expiate our sins without obedience to the Father. But where was the
disposition or will, requisite to obedience, but in his soul? which we
know was “troubled,”(1305) in order to dissipate all our fears, and obtain
peace and rest for ours. Moreover, in opposition to the Monothelites, we
see, that what was contrary to his will as man, was agreeable to his will
as God. I say nothing of his overcoming the fear of which we have spoken,
by a contrary disposition. For there is a manifest appearance of
contrariety when he says, “Father, save me from this hour: but for this
cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.”(1306) Yet, in this
perplexity, there is no such want of moderation as is evident in us, even
while we are exerting our most strenuous endeavours to conquer ourselves.

XIII. Next follows his resurrection from the dead, without which all that
we have said would be incomplete. For, since there appears nothing but
infirmity in the cross, death, and burial of Christ, faith must proceed
beyond all these things, to be furnished with sufficient strength.
Wherefore, although our salvation is perfectly accomplished by his death,
because by that we are reconciled to God, a satisfaction is given to his
righteous judgment, the curse is removed, and the punishment sustained,
yet we are said to have been “begotten again to a lively hope,” not by his
death, but “by his resurrection from the dead.”(1307) For as at his
resurrection he appeared the conqueror of death, so it is on his
resurrection that our faith principally rests. This is better expressed in
the words of Paul, when he says, that Christ “was delivered for our
offences, and was raised again for our justification;”(1308) as though he
had said, that sin was removed by his death, and righteousness renewed and
restored by his resurrection. For how was it possible for him by dying to
liberate us from death, if he had himself remained under its power? how
could he have obtained the victory for us, if he had been vanquished in
the contest? Wherefore we ascribe our salvation partly to the death of
Christ, and partly to his resurrection; we believe that sin was abolished,
and death destroyed, by the former; that righteousness was restored, and
life established, by the latter; yet so that the former discovers its
power and efficacy in us by means of the latter. Therefore Paul asserts
that he was “declared to be the Son of God, by the resurrection from the
dead;”(1309) because he then displayed his heavenly power, which is both a
lucid mirror of his Divinity, and a firm support of our faith. So, in
another place, he says, that “he was crucified through weakness, yet he
liveth by the power of God.”(1310) In the same sense, in another place,
treating of perfection, he says, “that I may know him, and the power of
his resurrection.”(1311) Yet, immediately after, he adds, “the fellowship
of his sufferings, and conformity to his death.” In perfect harmony with
this, is the following declaration of Peter: “God raised him up from the
dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God:”(1312)
not that faith totters when it rests on his death; but because “the power
of God,” which “keeps us through faith,”(1313) chiefly discovers itself in
his resurrection. Let us remember, therefore, that whenever mention is
made of his death alone, it comprehends also what strictly belongs to his
resurrection; and that the same figure of speech is applied to the word
_resurrection_, whenever it is used without any mention of his death, so
that it connects with it what is peculiarly applicable to his death. But
since it was by rising from the dead that he obtained the palm of victory,
to become the resurrection and the life, Paul justly contends, that, “if
Christ be not risen, then is” the “preaching” of the gospel “vain, and”
our “faith is also vain.”(1314) Therefore, in another place, after having
gloried in the death of Christ in opposition to all the fears of
condemnation, he adds, by way of amplification, “Yea, rather, that is
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us.”(1315) Besides, as we have before stated, that the
mortification of our flesh depends on communion with his cross, so it must
also be understood, that we obtain another benefit, corresponding to that,
from his resurrection. The apostle says, “If we have been planted together
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection: even so we also should walk in newness of life.”(1316)
Therefore, in another place, as, from our being dead with Christ, he
deduces an argument for the mortification of our members which are upon
the earth,(1317) so also, because we are risen with Christ, he thence
infers that we should seek those things which are above, and not those
which are on the earth.(1318) By which expressions we are not only invited
to walk in newness of life, after the example of Christ raised from the
dead, but are taught that our regeneration to righteousness is effected by
his power. We derive also a third benefit from his resurrection, having
received, as it were, a pledge to assure us of our own resurrection, of
which his clearly affords the most solid foundation and evidence. This
subject the apostle discusses more at large in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians.(1319) But it must be remarked by the way, that when he is
said to have “risen from the dead,” this phrase expresses the reality both
of his death and of his resurrection; as though it were said, that he died
the same death as other men naturally die, and received immortality in the
same body which he had assumed in a mortal state.

XIV. His _resurrection_ is properly followed in the Creed by his
_ascension to heaven_. For though Christ began to make a more illustrious
display of his glory and power at his resurrection, having now laid aside
the abject and ignoble condition of this mortal life, and the ignominy of
the cross, yet his ascension into heaven was the real commencement of his
reign. This the apostle shows, when he informs us, that he “ascended that
he might fill all things.”(1320) Here, in an apparent contradiction, he
suggests to us that there is a beautiful harmony, because Christ departed
from us, that his departure might be more useful to us than that presence,
which, during his continuance on earth, confined itself within the humble
mansion of his body. Therefore John, after having related that remarkable
invitation, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink,”
subjoins, that “the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was
not yet glorified.”(1321) This the Lord himself also declared to his
disciples: “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you.”(1322) Now, he proposes a
consolation for his corporeal absence, that he “will not leave them
comfortless, or orphans, but will come again to them,” in a manner
invisible indeed, but more desirable; because they were then taught by a
more certain experience that the authority which he enjoys, and the power
which he exercises, is sufficient for the faithful, not only to procure
them a blessed life, but to insure them a happy death. And, indeed, we see
how largely he then increased the effusions of his Spirit, how greatly he
advanced the magnificence of his reign, and what superior power he exerted
both in assisting his friends, and in defeating his enemies. Being
received up into heaven, therefore he removed his corporeal presence from
our view; not that he might no longer be present with the faithful who
were still in a state of pilgrimage on earth, but that he might govern
both heaven and earth by a more efficacious energy. Moreover, his promise,
that he would be with us till the end of the world, he has performed by
this his ascension; by which, as his body was elevated above all heavens,
so his power and energy have been diffused and extended beyond all the
limits of heaven and earth. In representing this, I would prefer the
language of Augustine to my own. “Christ,” says he, “was about to go by
death to the right hand of the Father, whence he will hereafter come to
judge the living and the dead; and this by a corporeal presence, according
to the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For in his spiritual presence
with them, he was to come soon after his ascension.” And elsewhere he
treats this subject in a manner still more diffuse and explicit. By his
ineffable and invisible grace, Christ has fulfilled his declaration, “Lo,
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”(1323) But with
respect to the body which the Word assumed, which was born of the Virgin,
which was apprehended by the Jews, which was fixed to the cross, which was
taken down from the cross, which was folded in linen, which was laid in
the sepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, there has been an
accomplishment of this prediction: “Ye shall not have me always with you.”
Why? Because in his corporeal presence he conversed with his disciples for
forty days, and while they were attending him, seen but not followed by
them, he ascended into heaven; and he is not here, for he sits there at
the right hand of the Father; and yet he is here, for he has not withdrawn
the presence of his majesty. In the presence of his majesty, therefore, we
have Christ always with us; but with respect to his corporeal presence, he
said with truth to his disciples, “Me ye have not always.” For the Church
enjoyed his corporeal presence for a few days; now she enjoys him by
faith, and does not behold him with her eyes.

XV. Wherefore it is immediately added, _that he is seated at the right
hand of the Father_; which is a similitude borrowed from princes, who have
their assistants, to whom they depute the exercise of the government. So
Christ, in whom the Father determines to be exalted, and by whose medium
he chooses to reign, is said to have been received to his right hand; as
though it were said, that he had been inaugurated in the government of
heaven and earth, and had solemnly entered on the actual administration of
the power committed to him; and not only that he has entered on it, but
that he continues in it, till he descends to judgment. For so the apostle
explains it, in the following words: “The Father hath set him at his own
right hand, far above all principality, and power, and might, and
dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also
in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave
him to be the head over all things to the church,” &c.(1324) We see the
end of this session; it is, that all creatures, both celestial and
terrestrial, may admire his majesty, be governed by his hand, obey his
will, and be subject to his power. And the only design of the apostles in
their frequent mention of it, is to teach us that all things are committed
to his government. Wherefore they who suppose that nothing but blessedness
is signified in this article, are not right in that opinion. It affects
not our argument, that Stephen declares that he sees Christ
“standing,”(1325) because the present question relates, not to the posture
of his body, but to the majesty of his dominion; so that _sitting_
signifies no other than presiding at the tribunal of heaven.

XVI. Hence faith receives many advantages. For it perceives, that by his
ascension the Lord has opened the way to the kingdom of heaven, which had
been stopped by Adam. For since he entered there in our nature, and as it
were in our names, it follows that, as the apostle expresses it, we now
“sit together” with him “in heavenly places,”(1326) because we not only
hope for heaven, but already possess it in our Head. Besides, faith knows
that his residence with his Father conduces greatly to our advantage. For
being entered into a sanctuary, which is not of human erection,(1327) he
continually appears in the presence of the Father as our advocate and
intercessor;(1328) he attracts the eyes of the Father to his
righteousness, so as to avert them from our sins; he reconciles him to us,
so as to procure for us, by his intercession, a way of access to his
throne, which he replenishes with grace and mercy, but which otherwise
would be pregnant with horror to miserable sinners.(1329) In the third
place, faith has an apprehension of his power, in which consists our
strength, our fortitude, our wealth, and our triumph over hell. For “when
he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,”(1330) spoiled his
enemies, and enriched his people, and daily loads them with spiritual
favours. He sits, therefore, on high, that from thence he may shed forth
his power upon us, that he may animate us with spiritual life, that he may
sanctify us by his Spirit, that he may adorn his Church with a variety of
graces, and defend it by his protection from every calamity, that by the
strength of his hand he may restrain the ferocious enemies of his cross
and of our salvation; finally, that he may retain all power in heaven and
in earth; till he shall have overthrown all his enemies, who are also
ours, and completed the edification of his Church. And this is the true
state of his kingdom, this the power which the Father has conferred on
him, till he completes the last act by coming to judge the living and the
dead.

XVII. Christ gives his servants unequivocal tokens of the presence of his
power; but because on earth his kingdom is in some measure concealed under
the meanness of the flesh, faith is, for a very good reason, called to
meditate on that visible presence which he will manifest at the last day.
For he will descend from heaven in a visible form, in the same manner in
which he was seen to ascend;(1331) and will appear to all with the
ineffable majesty of his kingdom, with the splendour of immortality, with
the infinite power of Deity, and with a host of angels.(1332) From thence,
therefore, we are commanded to expect him as our Redeemer at the last day,
when he will separate the sheep from the goats, the elect from the
reprobate; and there will not be an individual of either the living or the
dead that can escape his judgment. For from the most remote corners of the
world they will hear the sound of the trumpet, with which all mankind will
be summoned to his tribunal, both those whom that day shall find alive,
and those whom death shall previously have removed from the society of the
living. There are some who understand the words _quick_, or _living, and
dead_, in a different sense. And indeed we find that some of the fathers
hesitated respecting the exposition of this clause; but the sense we have
given, being plain and clear, is far more consistent with the design of
the Creed, which appears to have been composed for the common people. Nor
is this repugnant to the assertion of the apostle, that “it is appointed
unto men once to die.”(1333) For although they who shall survive in this
mortal life till the last judgment, shall not die in a natural manner and
order, yet that change, which they shall experience, since it will
resemble death, may without impropriety be designated by that appellation.
It is certain indeed that “all shall not sleep, but all shall be
changed.”(1334) What is that? In one moment their mortal life will be
extinguished and absorbed, and will be transformed into a nature entirely
new. This extinction of the flesh no man can deny to be death.
Nevertheless it remains a truth, that the living and the dead will be
summoned to judgment; for “the dead in Christ shall rise first: then they
which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”(1335) And it is very probable that
this article was taken from the sermon of Peter,(1336) and from the solemn
charge of Paul to Timothy.(1337)

XVIII. It is a source of peculiar consolation to hear that he will preside
at the judgment, who has already destined us to participate with himself
the honour of sitting in judgment with him, so far will he be from
ascending the tribunal to condemn us. For how could a most merciful prince
destroy his own people? how could a head scatter his own members? how
could an advocate condemn his own clients? For if the apostle ventures to
exclaim, that no one can condemn us while Christ intercedes for us,(1338)
it is much more certain that Christ himself, our intercessor, will not
condemn those whose cause he has undertaken, and whom he has engaged to
support. Indeed, it is no inconsiderable security, that we shall stand
before no other tribunal than that of our Redeemer, from whom we are to
expect salvation; and that he, who by the gospel now promises eternal
life, will at the judgment ratify and perform the promise which he has
given. The design of the Father in honouring the Son by “committing all
judgment to him,”(1339) was, that he might relieve the consciences of his
people from all fear concerning the judgment. Thus far I have followed the
order of the Apostles’ Creed; because, while it comprises, in a few words,
the principal points of redemption, it may serve to give us a distinct and
separate view of those particulars respecting Christ which merit our
attention. I style it the Apostles’ Creed, but am not at all solicitous to
know who was the composer of it. The ancient writers agree in ascribing it
to the apostles, either from a belief that it was written and published by
their common concurrence, or from an opinion that this compendium, being
faithfully collected from the doctrine delivered by them, was worthy of
being sanctioned by such a title. And whoever was the author of it, I have
no doubt that it has been publicly and universally received as a
confession of faith from the first origin of the Church, and even from the
days of the apostles. Nor is it probable that it was composed by any
private individual, since from time immemorial it has evidently been
esteemed as of sacred authority by all the pious. But what we ought
principally to regard, is beyond all controversy—that it comprehends a
complete account of our faith in a concise and distinct order, and that
every thing it contains is confirmed by decisive testimonies of Scripture.
This being ascertained, it is of no use anxiously to inquire, or to
contend with any one, respecting its author, unless it be not sufficient
for any one to have the unerring truth of the Holy Spirit, without knowing
either by whose mouth it was uttered, or by whose hand it was written.

XIX. Since we see that the whole of our salvation, and all the branches of
it, are comprehended in Christ, we must be cautious not to alienate from
him the least possible portion of it. If we seek salvation, we are taught
by the name of JESUS, that it is in him; if we seek any other gifts of the
Spirit, they will be found in his unction; strength, in his dominion;
purity, in his conception; indulgence discovers itself in his nativity, by
which he was made to resemble us in all things, that he might learn to
condole with us; if we seek redemption, it will be found in his passion;
absolution, in his condemnation; remission of the curse, in his cross;
satisfaction, in his sacrifice; purification, in his blood;
reconciliation, in his descent into hell; mortification of the flesh, in
his sepulchre; newness of life and immortality, in his resurrection; the
inheritance of the celestial kingdom, in his entrance into heaven;
protection, security, abundance, and enjoyment of all blessings, in his
kingdom; a fearless expectation of the judgment, in the judicial authority
committed to him. Finally, blessings of every kind are deposited in him;
let us draw from his treasury, and from no other source, till our desires
are satisfied. For they who, not content with him alone, are carried
hither and thither into a variety of hopes, although they fix their eyes
principally on him, nevertheless deviate from the right way in the
diversion of any part of their attention to another quarter. This
distrust, however, cannot intrude, where the plenitude of his blessings
has once been truly known.

Chapter XVII. Christ Truly And Properly Said To Have Merited The Grace Of
God And Salvation For Us.

We must devote an additional Chapter to the solution of this question. For
there are some men, more subtle than orthodox, who, though they confess
that Christ obtained salvation for us, yet cannot bear the word _merit_,
by which they suppose the grace of God is obscured. So they maintain that
Christ is only the instrument or minister, not, as he is called by Peter,
the Author, or Leader, and “Prince of life.”(1340) I grant, indeed, if any
man would oppose Christ simply and alone to the judgment of God, there
would be no room for merit; because it is impossible to find in man any
excellence which can merit the favour of God; nay, as Augustine most truly
observes, “The brightest illustration of predestination and grace is the
Saviour himself, the man Christ Jesus, who has acquired this character in
his human nature, without any previous merit either of works or of faith.
Let any one tell me, how that man merited the honour of being assumed into
one person with the Word, who is coëternal with the Father, and so
becoming the only begotten Son of God. Thus the fountain of grace appears
in our Head, and from him diffuses its streams through all his members
according to their respective capacities. Every one, from the commencement
of his faith, is made a Christian, by the same grace, by which this man,
from the commencement of his existence, was made the Christ.” Again, in
another treatise, Augustine says, “There is not a more illustrious example
of predestination than the Mediator himself. For he who made of the seed
of David this righteous man, so that he never was unrighteous, without any
previous merit of his will, converts unrighteous persons into righteous
ones, and makes them members of that Head,” &c. When we speak of the merit
of Christ, therefore, we do not consider him as the origin of it, but we
ascend to the ordination of God, which is the first cause; because it was
of his mere good pleasure, that God appointed him Mediator to procure
salvation for us. And thus it betrays ignorance to oppose the merit of
Christ to the mercy of God. For it is a common maxim, that between two
things, of which one succeeds or is subordinate to the other, there can be
no opposition. There is no reason, therefore, why the justification of men
should not be gratuitous from the mere mercy of God, and why at the same
time the merit of Christ should not intervene, which is subservient to the
mercy of God. But to our works are directly and equally opposed the
gratuitous favour of God and the obedience of Christ, each in its
respective place. For Christ could merit nothing except by the good
pleasure of God, by which he had been predestinated to appease the Divine
wrath by his sacrifice, and to abolish our transgressions by his
obedience. To conclude, since the merit of Christ depends solely on the
grace of God, which appointed this method of salvation for us, therefore
his merit and that grace are with equal propriety opposed to all the
righteousnesses of men.

II. This distinction is gathered from numerous passages of Scripture. “God
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish.”(1341) We see that the love of God
holds the first place, as the supreme and original cause, and that faith
in Christ follows as the second and proximate cause. If it be objected,
that Christ is only the formal cause, this diminishes his merit more than
the words now quoted will bear. For if we obtain righteousness by a faith
which relies on him, it is in him we are to seek the cause of our
salvation. This is evident from many passages. “Not that we loved God, but
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our
sins.”(1342) These words clearly demonstrate, that to remove every
obstacle in the way of his love towards us, God appointed a method of
reconciliation in Christ. And there is much contained in the word
“propitiation;” for God, in a certain ineffable manner, at the same time
that he loved us, was nevertheless angry with us, till he was reconciled
in Christ. This is implied in the following passages: “He is the
propitiation for our sins.”(1343) Again: “It pleased the Father, having
made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things
unto himself.”(1344) Again: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.”(1345) Again: “He hath
made us accepted in the Beloved.”(1346) Again: “That he might reconcile
both unto God in one body by the cross.”(1347) The reason of this mystery
may be learned from the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians,
where Paul, having taught that we are chosen in Christ, adds at the same
time, that we are accepted in him. How did God begin to favour those whom
he had loved before the creation of the world, but by the manifestation
which he made of his love when he was reconciled by the blood of Christ?
For since God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be
the enemy and judge of every sinner. Wherefore the beginning of his love
is the righteousness described by Paul: “He hath made him to be sin for
us, who knew no sin; that we may be made the righteousness of God in
him.”(1348) For his meaning is, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain
gratuitous righteousness, so as to be acceptable to God, though by nature
we are the children of wrath, and alienated from him by sin. This
distinction is indicated also wherever the grace of Christ is connected
with the love of God; whence it follows that our Saviour bestows on us
what he has purchased; for otherwise it would be inconsistent to ascribe
this praise to him distinctly from the Father, that grace is his, and
proceeds from him.

III. Now, that Christ by his obedience has really procured and merited
grace from the Father for us, is certainly and justly concluded from
various passages of Scripture. For I assume this as granted: if Christ has
satisfied for our sins; if he has sustained the punishment due to us; if
he has appeased God by his obedience; in a word, if he has suffered, the
just for the unjust,—then salvation has been obtained for us by his
righteousness, which is the same as being merited. But according to the
testimony of Paul, “We were reconciled by his death, by whom we have
received the atonement,” or reconciliation.(1349) Now, there is no room
for reconciliation without a previous offence. The sense therefore is,
that God, to whom our sins had rendered us odious, has been appeased by
the death of his Son, so as to be propitious to us. And the antithesis,
which follows just after, is worthy of careful observation: “As by one
man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous.”(1350) For the meaning is, that as by the
sin of Adam we were alienated from God and devoted to destruction, so by
the obedience of Christ we are received into favour, as righteous persons.
Nor does the future tense of the verb exclude present righteousness; as
appears from the context. For he had before said, “The free gift is of
many offences unto justification.”(1351)

IV. But when we say that grace is procured for us by the merit of Christ,
we intend, that we have been purified by his blood, and that his death was
an expiation for sins. “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all
sin.”(1352) “This blood is shed for the remission of sins.”(1353) If the
non‐imputation of our sins to us be the effect of the blood which he shed,
it follows that this was the price of satisfaction to the justice of God.
This is confirmed by the declaration of the Baptist: “Behold the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”(1354) For he opposes Christ
to all the sacrifices of the law, to show that what they prefigured was
accomplished in him alone. Now we know what Moses frequently says—that an
atonement shall be made for sin, and it shall be forgiven. In short, the
ancient figures give us a fine exhibition of the power and efficacy of the
death of Christ. And the apostle copiously discusses this subject in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, judiciously assuming this as a fundamental
principle, that “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” Whence
he infers, that Christ has “once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself;” and that “he was offered to bear the sins of many.”(1355) He
had already said, that “Not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his
own blood; he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption.”(1356) Now, when he argues in this manner, “If the blood of
bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood
of Christ purge your conscience from dead works!”(1357) it evidently
appears that we too much undervalue the grace of Christ, unless we
attribute to his sacrifice an expiatory, placatory, and satisfactory
efficacy. Therefore it is immediately added, “He is the mediator of the
New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”(1358) But we ought
particularly to consider the relation described by Paul, that he was “made
a curse for us.”(1359) For it would be unnecessary, and consequently
absurd, for Christ to be loaded with a curse, except in order to discharge
the debts due from others, and thereby to obtain a righteousness for them.
The testimony of Isaiah likewise is clear, that “the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”(1360) For if
Christ had not made a satisfaction for our sins, he could not be said to
have appeased God by suffering the punishment to which we were exposed.
This is confirmed by a subsequent clause: “For the transgression of my
people was he stricken.”(1361) Let us add the interpretation of Peter,
which will remove all difficulty, that “he bare our sins in his own body
on the tree;”(1362) which imports that the burden of condemnation, from
which we have been relieved, was laid upon Christ.

V. The apostles explicitly declare, that he paid a price to redeem us from
the sentence of death: “Being justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation, through faith in his blood.”(1363) Here Paul celebrates the
grace of God, because he has given the price of our redemption in the
death of Christ; and then enjoins us to betake ourselves to his blood,
that we may obtain righteousness, and may stand secure before the judgment
of God. Peter confirms the same when he says, “Ye were not redeemed with
corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”(1364) For there
would be no propriety in the comparison, unless this blood had been the
price of satisfaction for sin; for which reason Paul says, “Ye are bought
with a price.”(1365) Nor would there be any truth in his other assertion,
that “there is one Mediator, who gave himself a ransom,”(1366) unless the
punishment due to our demerits had been transferred to him. Therefore the
same apostle defines “redemption through his blood” to be “the forgiveness
of sins;”(1367) as though he had said, We are justified or acquitted
before God, because that blood is a complete satisfaction for us. This is
consonant with the following passage, that “he blotted out the hand‐
writing, which was contrary to us, nailing it to his cross.”(1368) For
these words signify the payment or compensation which absolves us from
guilt. There is great weight also in these words of Paul: “If
righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”(1369) For
hence we conclude, that we must seek from Christ what the law would confer
upon any one who fulfilled it; or, which is the same, that we obtain by
the grace of Christ what God promised in the law to our works; “which”
commandments “if a man do, he shall live in them.”(1370) This the apostle
confirms with equal perspicuity in his sermon at Antioch, asserting that
“by Christ all that believe are justified from all things, from which they
could not be justified by the law of Moses.”(1371) For if righteousness
consist in an observance of the law, who can deny that Christ merited
favour for us, when, by bearing this burden himself, he reconciles us to
God, just as though we were complete observers of the law ourselves? The
same idea is conveyed in what he afterwards writes to the Galatians, that
“God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law.”(1372) For what was the design of that subjection to the
law, but to procure a righteousness for us, by undertaking to perform that
which we were not able to do? Hence that imputation of righteousness
without works, of which Paul treats;(1373) because that righteousness
which is found in Christ alone is accepted as ours. Nor indeed is the
“flesh” of Christ called our “food”(1374) for any other reason but because
we find in it the substance of life. Now, this virtue proceeds solely from
the crucifixion of the Son of God, as the price of our righteousness. Thus
Paul says, “Christ hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice
to God for a sweet‐smelling savour.”(1375) And in another place, “He was
delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
justification.”(1376) Hence it is inferred, not only that salvation is
given us through Christ, but that the Father is now propitious to us for
his sake. For it cannot be doubted, but this, which God declares in a
figurative way by Isaiah, is perfectly fulfilled in him: “I will” do it
“for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.”(1377) Of this the
apostle is a sufficient witness, when he says, “Your sins are forgiven you
for his name’s sake.”(1378) For although the name of Christ is not
expressed, yet John, in his usual manner, designates him by the pronoun
αὐτος, _he_. In this sense the Lord declares, “As I live by the Father, so
he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”(1379) With which corresponds
the following declaration of Paul: “Unto you it is given for the love of
Christ (ὑπερ Χριστου) not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for
his sake.”(1380)

VI. But the inquiry made by Lombard and the schoolmen, whether Christ
merited for himself, discovers as much foolish curiosity, as the assertion
does presumption when they affirm it. For what necessity was there for the
only begotten Son of God to descend, in order to make any new acquisition
for himself? And God by the publication of his own counsel removes every
doubt. For it is said, not that the Father consulted the benefit of the
Son in his merits, but that he “delivered him to death, and spared him
not,”(1381) “because he loved the world.”(1382) And the language of the
prophets is worthy of observation: “Unto us a Child is born.”(1383) Again:
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; behold, thy King cometh unto
thee.”(1384) There would otherwise be no force in that confirmation of his
love, which Paul celebrates, that he “died for us, while we were
enemies.”(1385) For we infer from this, that he had no regard to himself;
and this he clearly affirms himself, when he says, “For their sakes I
sanctify myself.”(1386) For by transferring the benefit of his sanctity to
others, he declares that he makes no acquisition for himself. And it is
highly worthy of our observation, that in order to devote himself wholly
to our salvation, Christ in a manner forgot himself. To support this
notion of theirs, the schoolmen preposterously pervert the following
passage of Paul: “Wherefore also God hath highly exalted him, and given
him a name which is above every name.”(1387) For, considered as a man, by
what merits could he obtain such dignity as to be the Judge of the world
and the Head of angels, to enjoy the supreme dominion of God, and to be
the residence of that majesty, the thousandth part of which can never be
approached by all the abilities of men and of angels? But the solution is
easy and complete, that Paul, in that passage, is not treating of the
cause of the exaltation of Christ, but only showing the consequence of it,
that he might be an example to us; nor did he mean any other than what is
declared in another place, that “Christ ought to have suffered, and to
enter into his glory.”(1388)

BOOK III. ON THE MANNER OF RECEIVING THE GRACE OF CHRIST, THE BENEFITS
WHICH WE DERIVE FROM IT, AND THE EFFECTS WHICH FOLLOW IT.

Argument.

The two former books relate to God the Creator and Redeemer. This treats
of God the Sanctifier, or of the operations of the Holy Spirit towards our
salvation, being an accurate exposition of the third part of the Apostles’
Creed.

The principal topics of this are seven, relating chiefly to one object,
the doctrine of faith.

First. Since our enjoyment of Christ and all his benefits depends on the
secret and special operation of the Holy Spirit, it discusses this
operation, which is the foundation of faith, of newness of life, and of
all holy exercises—Chap. I.

Secondly. Faith being as it were the hand by which we embrace Christ the
Redeemer, as offered to us by the Holy Spirit, it next adds a complete
description of faith—Chap. II.

Thirdly. To improve our knowledge of this salutary faith, it proceeds to
show the effects which necessarily result from it; and contends that true
penitence is always the consequence of true faith. But first it proposes
the doctrine of repentance in general—Chap. III.; and then treats of
Popish penance and its constituent parts—Chap. IV.—of indulgences and
purgatorial fire—Chap. V. But institutes a particular discussion of the
two branches of true penitence, the mortification of the flesh, and the
vivification of the spirit, or the life of a Christian, which is
excellently described—Chap. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

Fourthly. In order to a clearer display of the advantages and consequences
of this faith, it first treats of justification by faith—Chap. XI.—then
explains the questions which arise from it—Chap. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI.
XVII. XVIII.—and, lastly, proceeds to a dissertation on Christian liberty,
which is an appendage to justification—Chap. XIX.

Fifthly. Next follows prayer, the principal exercise of faith, and the
medium or instrument by which we daily receive blessings from God—Chap.
XX.

Sixthly. But since the communication of Christ offered in the gospel is
not embraced by men in general, but only by those whom the Lord has
favoured with the efficacy and peculiar grace of his Spirit, it obviates
any supposition of absurdity, by subjoining a necessary and appropriate
dissertation on the doctrine of Divine election—Chap. XXI. XXII. XXIII.
XXIV.

Lastly. Since we are liable to various difficulties and troubles while
exercised in the severe warfare which always attends the life of a
Christian, it contends that this may be alleviated by meditating on the
final resurrection; and therefore adds a discourse on that subject—Chap.
XXV.

Chapter I. What Is Declared Concerning Christ Rendered Profitable To Us By
The Secret Operation Of The Spirit.

We are now to examine how we obtain the enjoyment of those blessings which
the Father has conferred on his only begotten Son, not for his own private
use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And first it must be remarked, that
as long as there is a separation between Christ and us, all that he
suffered and performed for the salvation of mankind is useless and
unavailing to us. To communicate to us what he received from his Father,
he must, therefore, become ours, and dwell within us. On this account he
is called our “Head,”(1389) and “the first‐born among many
brethren;”(1390) and we, on the other hand, are said to be “grafted into
him,”(1391) and to “put him on;”(1392) for, as I have observed, whatever
he possesses is nothing to us, till we are united to him. But though it be
true that we obtain this by faith, yet, since we see that the
communication of Christ, offered in the gospel, is not promiscuously
embraced by all, reason itself teaches us to proceed further, and to
inquire into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we are introduced
to the enjoyment of Christ and all his benefits. I have already treated of
the eternal Deity and essence of the Spirit; let us now confine ourselves
to this particular point: Christ came thus by water and blood, that the
Spirit may testify concerning him, in order that the salvation procured by
him may not be lost to us. For as “there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,” so also “there are three on
earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood.”(1393) Nor is this a useless
repetition of the testimony of the Spirit, which we perceive to be
engraven like a seal on our hearts, so that it seals the ablution and
sacrifice of Christ. For which reason Peter also says, that believers are
“elect through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ.”(1394) This passage suggests to us, that our
souls are purified by the secret ablution of the Spirit, that the effusion
of that sacred blood may not be in vain. For the same reason also Paul,
when speaking of purification and justification, says, we enjoy both “in
the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”(1395) The sum
of all is this—that the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ
efficaciously unites us to himself. And what we have advanced in the last
book concerning his unction, tends to establish the same truth.

II. But as a further confirmation of this point, which is highly worthy of
being understood, we must remember that Christ was endued with the Holy
Spirit in a peculiar manner; in order to separate us from the world, and
introduce us into the hope of an eternal inheritance. Hence the Spirit is
called “the Spirit of holiness;”(1396) not only because he animates and
supports us by that general power which is displayed in mankind, and in
all other creatures, but because he is the seed and root of a heavenly
life within us. The principal topic, therefore, dwelt on by the prophets
in celebrating the kingdom of Christ, is, that there would then be a more
exuberant effusion of the Spirit. The most remarkable passage is that of
Joel: “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh in those days.”(1397) For,
though the prophet seems to restrict the gifts of the Spirit to the
exercise of the prophetic function, yet he signifies, in a figurative way,
that God, by the illumination of his Spirit, will make those his
disciples, who before were total strangers to the heavenly doctrine.
Besides, as God the Father gives us his Holy Spirit for the sake of his
Son, and yet has deposited “all fulness” with his Son, that he might be
the minister and dispenser of his own goodness,—the Holy Spirit is
sometimes called the Spirit of the Father, and sometimes the Spirit of the
Son. “Ye (says Paul) are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be
that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit
of Christ, he is none of his.”(1398) And thence he inspires a hope of
complete renovation, for “he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall
also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”(1399)
For there is no absurdity in ascribing to the Father the praise of his own
gifts, of which he is the author; and also ascribing the same glory to
Christ, with whom the gifts of the Spirit are deposited, to be given to
his people. Therefore he invites all who thirst to come to him and
drink.(1400) And Paul teaches us, that “unto every one of us is given
grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”(1401) And it must
be remarked, that he is called the Spirit of Christ, not only because the
eternal Word of God is united with the same Spirit as the Father, but also
with respect to his character of Mediator; for, if he had not been endued
with this power, his advent to us would have been altogether in vain. In
which sense he is called “the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, a
quickening Spirit;”(1402) where Paul compares the peculiar life with which
the Son of God inspires his people, that they may be one with him, to that
animal life which is equally common to the reprobate. So, where he wishes
to the faithful “the grace of Christ, and the love of God,” he adds also
“the communion of the Spirit,”(1403) without which there can be no
enjoyment of the paternal favour of God, or the beneficence of Christ. As
he says also in another place, “the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.”(1404)

III. And here it will be proper to notice the titles by which the
Scripture distinguishes the Spirit, where it treats of the commencement,
progress, and completion of our salvation. First, he is called the “Spirit
of adoption,”(1405) because he witnesses to us the gratuitous benevolence
of God, with which God the Father has embraced us in his beloved and only
begotten Son, that he might be a father to us; and animates us to pray
with confidence, and even dictates expressions, so that we may boldly cry,
“Abba, Father.” For the same reason, he is said to be “the earnest” and
“seal” of our inheritance; because, while we are pilgrims and strangers in
the world, and as persons dead, he infuses into us such life from heaven,
that we are certain of our salvation being secured by the Divine
faithfulness and care.(1406) Whence he is also said to be “life,” because
of righteousness.(1407) Since by his secret showers he makes us fertile in
producing the fruits of righteousness, he is frequently called “water;” as
in Isaiah: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.”(1408)
Again: “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the
dry ground.”(1409) To which corresponds the invitation of Christ, just
quoted: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me.”(1410) He sometimes,
however, receives this appellation from his purifying and cleansing
energy; as in Ezekiel, where the Lord promises to sprinkle clean water on
his people, to cleanse them from their impurities.(1411) Because he
restores to life and vigour, and continually supports, those whom he has
anointed with the oil of his grape, he thence obtains the name of
“unction.”(1412) Because he daily consumes the vices of our concupiscence,
and inflames our hearts with the love of God and the pursuit of
piety,—from these effects he is justly called “fire.”(1413) Lastly, he is
described to us as a “fountain,” whence we receive all the emanation of
heavenly riches; and as “the hand of God,” by which he exerts his power;
because by the breath of his power he inspires us with Divine life, so
that we are not now actuated from ourselves, but directed by his agency
and influence; so that if there be any good in us, it is the fruit of his
grace, whereas our characters without him are darkness of mind and
perverseness of heart. It has, indeed, already been clearly stated, that
till our minds are fixed on the Spirit, Christ remains of no value to us;
because we look at him as an object of cold speculation without us, and
therefore at a great distance from us. But we know that he benefits none
but those who have him for their “head” and “elder brother,” and who have
“put him on.”(1414) This union alone renders his advent in the character
of a Saviour available to us. We learn the same truth from that sacred
marriage, by which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone,
and therefore one with him.(1415) It is only by his Spirit that he unites
himself with us; and by the grace and power of the same Spirit we are made
his members; that he may keep us under himself, and we may mutually enjoy
him.

IV. But faith, being his principal work, is the object principally
referred to in the most frequent expressions of his power and operation;
because it is the only medium by which he leads us into the light of the
gospel; according to the declaration of John, that “Christ gave power (or
privilege) to become the sons of God to them that believed on his name;
which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God;”(1416) where, opposing God to flesh and blood, he
asserts the reception of Christ by faith, by those who would otherwise
remain unbelievers, to be a supernatural gift. Similar to which is this
answer of Christ: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father, which is in heaven;”(1417) which I now merely mention because I
have elsewhere treated it at large. Similar also is the assertion of Paul,
that the Ephesians “were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.”(1418)
For this shows, that there is an eternal teacher, by whose agency the
promise of salvation, which otherwise would only strike the air, or at
most our ears, penetrates into our minds. Similar also is his remark, that
the Thessalonians were “chosen by God through sanctification of the
Spirit, and belief of the truth;”(1419) by which connection, he briefly
suggests, that faith itself proceeds only from the Spirit. John expresses
this in plainer terms: “We know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which
he hath given us.”(1420) Again: “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and
he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.”(1421) Therefore Christ
promised to send to his disciples “the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot receive,”(1422) that they might be capable of attaining heavenly
wisdom. He ascribes to him the peculiar office of suggesting to their
minds all the oral instructions which he had given them. For in vain would
the light present itself to the blind, unless this Spirit of understanding
would open their mental eyes; so that he may be justly called the key with
which the treasures of the kingdom of heaven are unlocked to us; and his
illumination constitutes our mental eyes to behold them. It is therefore
that Paul so highly commends the ministry of the Spirit;(1423) because the
instructions of preachers would produce no benefit, did not Christ
himself, the internal teacher, by his Spirit, draw to him those who were
given him by the Father.(1424) Therefore, as we have stated, that complete
salvation is found in the person of Christ, so, to make us partakers of
it, he “baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and with fire,”(1425)
enlightening us into the faith of his Gospel, regenerating us so that we
become new creatures, and, purging us from profane impurities, consecrates
us as holy temples to God.

Chapter II. Faith Defined, And Its Properties Described.

All these things will be easily understood when we have given a clearer
definition of faith, that the reader may perceive its nature and
importance. But it will be proper to recall to his remembrance, what has
been already stated; that God has given us his law as the rule of our
conduct, and that, if we are guilty of even the smallest breach of it, we
are exposed to the dreadful punishment of eternal death, which he
denounces. Again, that since it is not only difficult, but entirely above
our strength, and beyond the utmost extent of our ability, to fulfil the
law as he requires,—if we only view ourselves, and consider what we have
demerited, we have not the least hope left, but, as persons rejected by
God, are on the verge of eternal perdition. In the third place, it has
been explained, that there is but one method of deliverance, by which we
can be extricated from such a direful calamity; that is, the appearance of
Christ the Redeemer, by whose means our heavenly Father, commiserating us
in his infinite goodness and mercy, has been pleased to relieve us, if we
embrace this mercy with a sincere faith, and rely on it with a constant
hope. But we must now examine the nature of this faith, by which all who
are the adopted sons of God enter on the possession of the heavenly
kingdom; since it is certain, that not every opinion, nor even every
persuasion, is equal to the accomplishment of so great a work. And we
ought to be the more cautious and diligent in our meditations and
inquiries on the genuine property of faith, in proportion to the
pernicious tendency of the mistakes of multitudes in the present age on
this subject. For a great part of the world, when they hear the word
_faith_, conceive it to be nothing more than a common assent to the
evangelical history. And even the disputes of the schools concerning
faith, by simply styling God the object of it, (as I have elsewhere
observed,) rather mislead miserable souls by a vain speculation, than
direct them to the proper mark. For, since God “dwelleth in the light,
which no man can approach unto,”(1426) there is a necessity for the
interposition of Christ, as the medium of access to him. Whence he calls
himself “the light of the world,”(1427) and in another place, “the way,
and the truth, and the life;” because “no man cometh unto the Father,” who
is the fountain of life, “but by him;”(1428) because he alone knows the
Father, and reveals him to believers.(1429)

For this reason Paul asserts, that he esteemed nothing worthy of being
known but Jesus Christ;(1430) and in the twentieth chapter of the Acts
declares, that he had preached faith in Christ; and in another place, he
introduces Christ speaking in the following manner: “I send thee unto the
Gentiles, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among
them which are sanctified by faith, that is in me.”(1431) This apostle
tells us, that the glory of God is visible to us in his person, or (which
conveys the same idea) that “the light of the knowledge of the glory of
God” shines “in his face.”(1432) It is true, that faith relates to the one
God; but there must also be added a knowledge of Jesus Christ, whom he has
sent.(1433) For God himself would be altogether concealed from us, if we
were not illuminated by the brightness of Christ. For this purpose the
Father has deposited all his treasures with his only begotten Son, that he
might reveal himself in him; and that, by such a communication of
blessings, he might express a true image of his glory. For as it has been
observed, that we require to be drawn by the Spirit, that we may be
excited to seek Christ, so we should also be apprized, that the invisible
Father is to be sought only in this image. On which subject, Augustine,
treating of the object of faith, beautifully remarks, “that we ought to
know whither we should go, and in what way;” and immediately after he
concludes, “that he who unites Deity and humanity in one person, is the
way most secure from all errors; for that it is God towards whom we tend,
and man by whom we go; but that both together can be found only in
Christ.” Nor does Paul, when he speaks of faith in God, intend to subvert
what he so frequently inculcates concerning faith, whose stability is
wholly in Christ. And Peter most suitably connects them together, when he
says, that “by him we believe in God.”(1434)

II. This evil, then, as well as innumerable others, must be imputed to the
schoolmen, who have, as it were, concealed Christ, by drawing a veil over
him; whereas, unless our views be immediately and steadily directed to
him, we shall always be wandering through labyrinths without end. They not
only, by their obscure definition, diminish, and almost annihilate, all
the importance of faith, but have fabricated the notion of implicit faith,
a term with which they have honoured the grossest ignorance, and most
perniciously deluded the miserable multitude. Indeed, to express the fact
more truly and plainly, this notion has not only buried the true faith in
oblivion, but has entirely destroyed it. Is this faith—to understand
nothing, but obediently to submit our understanding to the Church? Faith
consists not in ignorance, but in knowledge; and that not only of God, but
also of the Divine will. For we do not obtain salvation by our promptitude
to embrace as truth whatever the Church may have prescribed, or by our
transferring to her the province of inquiry and of knowledge. But when we
know God to be a propitious Father to us, through the reconciliation
effected by Christ, and that Christ is given to us for righteousness,
sanctification, and life,—by this knowledge, I say, not by renouncing our
understanding, we obtain an entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For, when
the apostle says, that “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness,
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,”(1435) he indicates,
that it is not sufficient for a man implicitly to credit what he neither
understands, nor even examines; but he requires an explicit knowledge of
the Divine goodness, in which our righteousness consists.

III. I do not deny (such is the ignorance with which we are enveloped)
that many things are very obscure to us at present, and will continue to
be so, till we shall have cast off the burden of the flesh, and arrived
nearer to the presence of God. On such subjects, nothing would be more
proper than a suspension of judgment, and a firm resolution to maintain
unity with the Church. But that ignorance combined with humility should,
under this pretext, be dignified with the appellation of Faith, is
extremely absurd. For faith consists in a knowledge of God and of
Christ,(1436) not in reverence for the Church. And we see what a labyrinth
they have fabricated by this notion of theirs, so that the ignorant and
inexperienced, without any discrimination, eagerly embrace as oracular
every thing obtruded upon them under the name of the Church; sometimes
even the most monstrous errors. This inconsiderate credulity, though it be
the certain precipice of ruin, is, nevertheless, excused by them on the
plea that it credits nothing definitively, but with this condition
annexed, if such be the faith of the Church. Thus they pretend that truth
is held in error, light in darkness, and true knowledge in ignorance. But,
not to occupy any more time in refuting them, we only admonish the reader
to compare their doctrine with ours; for the perspicuity of the truth will
of itself furnish a sufficient refutation. For the question with them is
not, whether faith be yet involved in many relics of ignorance, but they
positively assert, that persons are possessed of true faith, who are
charmed with their ignorance, and even indulge it, provided they assent to
the authority and judgment of the Church concerning things unknown; as if
the Scripture did not universally inculcate that knowledge is united with
faith.

IV. We grant, that during our pilgrimage in the world, our faith is
implicit, not only because many things are yet hidden from our view, but
because our knowledge of every thing is very imperfect, in consequence of
the clouds of error by which we are surrounded. For the greatest wisdom of
those who are most perfect, is to improve, and to press forward with
patient docility. Therefore Paul exhorts the faithful, if they differ from
each other on any subject, to wait for further revelation.(1437) And
experience teaches us, that till we are divested of the flesh, our
knowledge falls far short of what might be wished; in reading also, many
obscure passages daily occur, which convince us of our ignorance. With
this barrier God restrains us within the bounds of modesty, assigning to
every one a measure of faith, that even the most learned teacher may be
ready to learn. We may observe eminent examples of this implicit faith in
the disciples of Christ, before they were fully enlightened. We see with
what difficulty they imbibed the first rudiments; how they hesitated even
at the most minute particulars; what inconsiderable advances they made
even while hanging on the lips of their Master; and when they ran to the
grave at the intelligence of the women, his resurrection was like a dream
to them. The testimony already borne by Christ to their possession of
faith, forbids us to say that they were entirely destitute of it; indeed,
if they had not been persuaded that Christ would rise from the dead, they
would have felt no further concern about him. The women were not induced
by superstition to embalm with spices the body of a deceased man, of whose
life there was no hope; but though they credited his declarations, whose
veracity they well knew, yet the ignorance, which still occupied their
minds, involved their faith in darkness, so that they were almost lost in
astonishment. Whence also they are said at length to have believed, when
they saw the words of Christ verified by facts; not that their faith then
commenced, but the seed of faith, which had been latent, and as it were
dead in their hearts, then shot forth with additional vigour. They had
therefore a true but an implicit faith, because they received Christ with
reverence as their only teacher: being taught by him, they were persuaded
that he was the author of their salvation; and they believed that he came
from heaven, that through the grace of the Father he might assemble all
his disciples there. But we need not seek a more familiar proof of this
point, than that some portion of unbelief is always mixed with faith in
every Christian.

V. We may also style that an implicit faith, which in strict propriety is
nothing but a preparation for faith. The evangelists relate that many
believed, who, only being filled with admiration at the miracles of
Christ, proceeded no further than a persuasion that he was the promised
Messiah, although they had little or no knowledge of evangelical doctrine.
Such reverence, which induced them cheerfully to submit themselves to
Christ, is dignified with the title of faith, of which, however, it was
merely the commencement. Thus the nobleman, or courtier, who believed the
promise of Christ concerning the healing of his son, when he returned to
his house,(1438) according to the testimony of the evangelist, believed
again; that is, first he esteemed as an oracle what he had heard from the
lips of Christ; but afterwards he devoted himself to his authority to
receive his doctrine. It must be understood, however, that he was docile
and ready to learn; that the word _believe_, in the first place, denotes a
particular faith; but in the second place, it numbers him among the
disciples who had given their names to Christ. John gives us a similar
example in the Samaritans, who believed the report of the woman, so as to
run with eagerness to Christ; but who, after having heard him, said to the
woman, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard him
ourselves, and know, that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the
world.”(1439) Hence it appears, that persons not yet initiated into the
first elements, but only inclined to obedience, are called believers; not,
indeed, with strict propriety, but because God, in his goodness,
distinguishes that pious disposition with such a great honour. But this
docility, connected with a desire of improvement, is very remote from that
gross ignorance which stupefies those who are content with such an
implicit faith as the Papists have invented. For if Paul severely condemns
those who are “ever learning, yet never come to the knowledge of the
truth,”(1440) how much greater ignominy do they deserve who make it their
study to know nothing!

VI. This, then, is the true knowledge of Christ—to receive him as he is
offered by the Father, that is, invested with his gospel; for, as he is
appointed to be the object of our faith, so we cannot advance in the right
way to him, without the guidance of the gospel. The gospel certainly opens
to us those treasures of grace, without which Christ would profit us
little. Thus Paul connects faith as an inseparable concomitant with
doctrine, where he says, “Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be ye have
been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.”(1441) Yet I do not so far
restrict faith to the gospel, but that I admit Moses and the prophets to
have delivered what was sufficient for its establishment; but because the
gospel exhibits a fuller manifestation of Christ, it is justly styled by
Paul, “the words of faith and of good doctrine.”(1442) For the same
reason, in another place, he represents the law as abolished by the coming
of faith;(1443) comprehending under this term the new kind of teaching, by
which Christ, since his appearance as our Master, has given a brighter
display of the mercy of the Father, and a more explicit testimony
concerning our salvation. The more easy and convenient method for us will
be, to descend regularly from the genus to the species. In the first
place, we must be apprized, that faith has a perpetual relation to the
word, and can no more be separated from it, than the rays from the sun,
whence they proceed. Therefore God proclaims by Isaiah, “Hear, and your
souls shall live.”(1444) And that the word is the fountain of faith, is
evident from this language of John: “These are written, that ye might
believe.”(1445) The Psalmist also, intending to exhort the people to
faith, says, “To‐day, if ye will hear his voice;”(1446) and to hear,
generally means to believe. Lastly, it is not without reason that in
Isaiah, God distinguishes the children of the Church from strangers, by
this character, that they shall all be his disciples, and be taught by
him;(1447) for, if this were a benefit common to all, why should he
address himself to a few? Correspondent with this is the general use of
the words “believers,” and “disciples,” as synonymous, by the evangelists,
on all occasions, and by Luke in particular, very frequently in the Acts
of the Apostles; in the ninth chapter of which, he extends the latter
epithet even to a woman. Wherefore, if faith decline in the smallest
degree from this object, towards which it ought to be directed, it no
longer retains its own nature, but becomes an uncertain credulity, and an
erroneous excursion of the mind. The same Divine word is the foundation by
which faith is sustained and supported, from which it cannot be moved
without an immediate downfall. Take away the word, then, and there will be
no faith left. We are not here disputing whether the ministry of men be
necessary to disseminate the word of God, by which faith is produced,
which we shall discuss in another place; but we assert, that the word
itself, however it may be conveyed to us, is like a mirror, in which faith
may behold God. Whether, therefore, God in this instance use the agency of
men, or whether he operate solely by his own power, he always discovers
himself by his word to those whom he designs to draw to himself.(1448)
Whence Paul defines faith as an obedience rendered to the gospel, and
praises the service of faith.(1449) For the apprehension of faith is not
confined to our knowing that there is a God, but chiefly consists in our
understanding what is his disposition towards us. For it is not of so much
importance to us to know what he is in himself, as what he is willing to
be to us. We find, therefore, that faith is a knowledge of the will of God
respecting us, received from his word. And the foundation of this is a
previous persuasion of the Divine veracity; any doubt of which being
entertained in the mind, the authority of the word will be dubious and
weak, or rather it will be of no authority at all. Nor is it sufficient to
believe that the veracity of God is incapable of deception or falsehood,
unless you also admit, as beyond all doubt, that whatever proceeds from
him is sacred and inviolable truth.

VII. But as the human heart is not excited to faith by every word of God,
we must further inquire what part of the word it is, with which faith is
particularly concerned. God declared to Adam, “Thou shalt surely
die;”(1450) and to Cain, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me
from the ground;”(1451) but these declarations are so far from being
adapted to the establishment of faith, that of themselves they can only
shake it. We do not deny that it is the office of faith to subscribe to
the truth of God, whatever be the time, the nature, or the manner of his
communications; but our present inquiry is only, what faith finds in the
Divine word, upon which to rest its dependence and confidence. When our
conscience beholds nothing but indignation and vengeance, how shall it not
tremble with fear? And if God be the object of its terror, how should it
not fly from him? But faith ought to seek God, not to fly from him. It
appears, then, that we have not yet a complete definition of faith; since
a knowledge of the Divine will indefinitely, ought not to be accounted
faith. But suppose, instead of will,—the declaration of which is often
productive of fear and sorrow,—we substitute benevolence or mercy. This
will certainly bring us nearer to the nature of faith. For we are allured
to seek God, after we have learned that salvation is laid up for us with
him; which is confirmed to us by his declaring it to be the object of his
care and affection. Therefore we need a promise of grace, to assure us
that he is our propitious Father; since we cannot approach to him without
it, and it is upon that alone that the human heart can securely depend.
For this reason, in the Psalms, mercy and truth are generally united, as
being closely connected; because it would be of no avail for us to know
the veracity of God, if he did not allure us to himself by his mercy; nor
should we embrace his mercy, if he did not offer it with his own mouth. “I
have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy
loving‐kindness and thy truth. Let thy loving‐kindness and thy truth
continually preserve me.”(1452) Again: “Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the
heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.”(1453) Again: “All
the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his
covenant.”(1454) Again: “His merciful kindness is great towards us; and
the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.”(1455) Again: “I will praise thy
name for thy loving‐kindness, and for thy truth.”(1456) I forbear to quote
what we read in the prophets to the same purport, that God is merciful and
faithful in his promises. For it will be temerity to conclude that God is
propitious to us, unless he testify concerning himself, and anticipate us
by his invitation, that his will respecting us may be neither ambiguous
nor obscure. But we have already seen, that Christ is the only pledge of
his love, without whom the tokens of his hatred and wrath are manifest
both above and below. Now, since the knowledge of the Divine goodness will
not be attended with much advantage, unless it lead us to rely upon it, we
must exclude that apprehension of it which is mixed with doubts, which is
not uniform and steady, but wavering and undecided. Now, the human mind,
blinded and darkened as it is, is very far from being able to penetrate
and attain to a knowledge of the Divine will; and the heart also,
fluctuating in perpetual hesitation, is far from continuing unshaken in
that persuasion. Therefore our mind must be illuminated, and our heart
established by some exterior power, that the word of God may obtain full
credit with us. Now, we shall have a complete definition of faith, if we
say, that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the Divine benevolence
towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in
Christ, is both revealed to our minds, and confirmed to our hearts, by the
Holy Spirit.

VIII. But before I proceed any further, it will be necessary to make some
preliminary observations, for the solution of difficulties, which
otherwise might prove obstacles in the way of the reader.

And first, we must refute the nugatory distinction, which prevails in the
schools, of formal and informal faith. For they imagine, that such as are
not impressed with any fear of God, or with any sense of piety, believe
all that is necessary to be known in order to salvation; as though the
Holy Spirit, in illuminating our hearts to faith, were not a witness to us
of our adoption. Yet, in opposition to the whole tenor of Scripture, they
presumptuously dignify such a persuasion, destitute of the fear of God,
with the name of faith. We need not contend with this definition any
further than by simply describing the nature of faith, as it is
represented in the Divine word. And this will clearly evince the ignorance
and insipidity of their clamour concerning it. I have treated it in part
already, and shall subjoin what remains in its proper place. At present, I
affirm, that a greater absurdity than this figment of theirs, cannot
possibly be imagined. They maintain faith to be a mere assent, with which
every despiser of God may receive as true whatever is contained in the
Scripture. But first it should be examined, whether every man acquires
faith for himself by his own power, or whether it is by faith that the
Holy Spirit becomes the witness of adoption. They betray puerile folly,
therefore, in inquiring whether faith, which is formed by the
superaddition of a quality, be the same, or whether it be a new and
different faith. It clearly appears, that while they have been trifling in
this manner, they never thought of the peculiar gift of the Spirit; for
the commencement of faith contains in it the reconciliation by which man
draws near to God. But, if they would duly consider that declaration of
Paul, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,”(1457) they would
cease their trifling about this superadded quality. If we had only this
one reason, it ought to be sufficient to terminate the controversy—that
the assent which we give to the Divine word, as I have partly suggested
before, and shall again more largely repeat, is from the heart rather than
the head, and from the affections rather than the understanding. For which
reason it is called “the obedience of faith,”(1458) to which the Lord
prefers no other obedience; because nothing is more precious to him than
his own truth; which, according to the testimony of John the
Baptist,(1459) believers, as it were, subscribe and seal. As this is by no
means a dubious point, we conclude at once, that it is an absurdity to
say, that faith is formed by the addition of a pious affection to an
assent of the mind; whereas, even this assent consists in a pious
affection, and is so described in the Scriptures. But another argument
offers itself, which is still plainer. Since faith accepts Christ, as he
is offered to us by the Father; and he is offered, not only for
righteousness, remission of sins, and peace, but also for sanctification
and as a fountain of living water; it is certain, that no man can ever
know him aright, unless he at the same time receive the sanctification of
the Spirit. Or, if any one would wish it to be more clearly expressed,
Faith consists in a knowledge of Christ. Christ cannot be known without
the sanctification of his Spirit. Consequently, faith is absolutely
inseparable from a pious affection.

IX. This passage of Paul, “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing,”(1460) is generally adduced
by them to support the notion of an informal faith unaccompanied with
charity; but they overlook the sense in which the apostle uses the word
“faith” in this place. For having, in the preceding chapter, treated of
the various gifts of the Spirit, among which he has enumerated “divers
kinds of tongues, the working of miracles and prophecy,”(1461) and having
exhorted the Corinthians to “covet earnestly the best gifts,” from which
the greatest benefit and advantage would accrue to the whole body of the
Church, he adds, “yet show I unto you a more excellent way;” implying,
that all such gifts, whatever be their intrinsic excellence, are yet to be
deemed worthless, unless they be subservient to charity; for that, being
given for the edification of the Church, if not employed for that purpose,
they lose their beauty and value. To prove this, he particularly specifies
them, repeating the same gifts, which he had before enumerated, but under
other names. He uses the word “faith” to denote what he had before called
powers, (δυναμεις, _potestates_, _virtutes_,) that is, a power of working
miracles. This, then, whether it be called power or faith, being a
particular gift of God, which any impious man may both possess and abuse,
as the gift of tongues, or prophecy, or other gifts, we need not wonder if
it be separated from charity. But the mistake of such persons arises
wholly from this—that though the word “faith” is used in many senses, not
observing this diversity of signification, they argue as if it had always
the same meaning. The passage which they adduce from James in support of
the same error, shall be discussed in another place. Now, although, for
the sake of instruction, when we design to show the nature of that
knowledge of God, which is possessed by the impious, we allow that there
are various kinds of faith, yet we acknowledge and preach only one faith
in the pious, according to the doctrine of the Scripture. Many men
certainly believe that there is a God; they admit the evangelical history
and the other parts of Scripture to be true; just as we form an opinion of
transactions which are narrated as having occurred in former times, or of
which we have ourselves been spectators. There are some who go further;
esteeming the word of God as an undoubted revelation from heaven, not
wholly disregarding its precepts, and being in some measure affected both
by its denunciations and by its promises. To such persons, indeed, faith
is attributed; but by a catachresis, a tropical or improper form of
expression; because they do not with open impiety resist, or reject, or
contemn the word of God, but rather exhibit some appearance of obedience
to it.

X. But this shadow or image of faith, as it is of no importance, so is
unworthy of the name of faith; its great distance from the substantial
truth of which, though we shall show more at large hereafter, there can be
no objection to its being briefly pointed out here. Simon Magus(1462) is
said to have believed, who, nevertheless, just after, betrays his
unbelief. When faith is attributed to him, we do not apprehend, with some,
that he merely pretended to it with his lips, while he had none in his
heart; but we rather think, that being overcome with the majesty of the
gospel, he did exercise a kind of faith, and perceived Christ to be the
author of life and salvation, so as freely to profess himself one of his
followers. Thus, in the Gospel of Luke, those persons are said to believe
for a time, in whom the seed of the word is prematurely choked before it
fructifies, and those in whom it takes no root, but soon dries up and
perishes. We doubt not but such persons, being attracted with some taste
of the word, receive it with avidity, and begin to perceive something of
its Divine power; so that by the fallacious counterfeit of faith, they
impose not only on the eyes of men, but even on their own minds. For they
persuade themselves, that the reverence which they show for the word of
God, is real piety; supposing that there is no impiety but a manifest and
acknowledged abuse or contempt of it. But, whatever be the nature of that
assent, it penetrates not to the heart, so as to fix its residence there;
and though it sometimes appears to have shot forth roots, yet there is no
life in them. The heart of man has so many recesses of vanity, and so many
retreats of falsehood, and is so enveloped with fraudulent hypocrisy, that
it frequently deceives even himself. But let them, who glory in such
phantoms of faith, know, that in this respect they are not at all superior
to devils. Persons of the former description, who hear and understand
without any emotion those things, the knowledge of which makes devils
tremble, are certainly far inferior to the fallen spirits; and the others
are equal to them in this respect—that the sentiments with which they are
impressed, finally terminate in terror and consternation.(1463)

XI. I know that it appears harsh to some, when faith is attributed to the
reprobate; since Paul affirms it to be the fruit of election. But this
difficulty is easily solved; for, though none are illuminated to faith, or
truly feel the efficacy of the gospel, but such as are preordained to
salvation, yet experience shows, that the reprobate are sometimes affected
with emotions very similar to those of the elect, so that, in their own
opinion, they in no respect differ from the elect. Wherefore, it is not at
all absurd, that a taste of heavenly gifts is ascribed to them by the
apostle, and a temporary faith by Christ:(1464) not that they truly
perceive the energy of spiritual grace and clear light of faith, but
because the Lord, to render their guilt more manifest and inexcusable,
insinuates himself into their minds, as far as his goodness can be enjoyed
without the Spirit of adoption. If any one object, that there remains,
then, no further evidence by which the faithful can certainly judge of
their adoption, I reply, that although there is a great similitude and
affinity between the elect of God and those who are endued with a frail
and transitory faith, yet the elect possess that confidence, which Paul
celebrates, so as boldly to “cry, Abba, Father.”(1465) Therefore, as God
regenerates for ever the elect alone with incorruptible seed, so that the
seed of life planted in their hearts never perishes, so he firmly seals
within them the grace of his adoption, that it may be confirmed and
ratified to their minds. But this by no means prevents that inferior
operation of the Spirit from exerting itself even in the reprobate. In the
mean time the faithful are taught to examine themselves with solicitude
and humility, lest carnal security insinuate itself, instead of the
assurance of faith. Besides, the reprobate have only a confused perception
of grace, so that they embrace the shadow rather than the substance;
because the Spirit properly seals remission of sins in the elect alone,
and they apply it by a special faith to their own benefit. Yet the
reprobate are justly said to believe that God is propitious to them,
because they receive the gift of reconciliation, though in a confused and
too indistinct manner: not that they are partakers of the same faith or
regeneration with the sons of God, but because they appear, under the
disguise of hypocrisy, to have the principle of faith in common with them.
Nor do I deny, that God so far enlightens their minds, that they discover
his grace; but he so distinguishes that perception from the peculiar
testimony, which he gives to his elect, that they never attain any solid
effect and enjoyment. For he does not, therefore, show himself propitious
to them, by truly delivering them from death, and receiving them under his
protection; but he only manifests to them present mercy. But he vouchsafes
to the elect alone, the living root of faith, that they may persevere even
to the end. Thus we have refuted the objection, that if God truly
discovers his grace, it remains for ever; because nothing prevents God
from illuminating some with a present perception of his grace, which
afterwards vanishes away.

XII. Moreover, though faith is a knowledge of the benevolence of God
towards us, and a certain persuasion of his veracity, yet it is not to be
wondered at, that the subjects of these temporary impressions lose the
sense of Divine love, which, notwithstanding its affinity to faith, is yet
widely different from it. The will of God, I confess, is immutable, and
his truth always consistent with itself. But I deny that the reprobate
ever go so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation, which the
Scripture confines to the elect. I deny, therefore, that they either
apprehend the will of God, as it is immutable, or embrace his truth with
constancy; because they rest in a fugitive sentiment. Thus a tree, not
planted deeply enough to shoot forth living roots, in process of time
withers; though for some years it may produce not only leaves and
blossoms, but even fruits. Finally, as the defection of the first man was
sufficient to obliterate the Divine image from his mind and soul, so we
need not wonder if God enlightens the reprobate with some beams of his
grace, which he afterwards suffers to be extinguished. Nor does any thing
prevent him from slightly tincturing some with the knowledge of his
gospel, and thoroughly imbuing others with it. It must, nevertheless, be
remembered, that how diminutive and weak soever faith may be in the elect,
yet, as the Spirit of God is a certain pledge and seal to them of their
adoption, his impression can never be erased from their hearts; but that
the reprobate have only a few scattered rays of light, which are
afterwards lost; yet that the Spirit is not chargeable with deception,
because he infuses no life into the seed which he drops in their hearts,
that it may remain for ever incorruptible, as in the elect. I go still
further; for since it is evident from the tenor of the Scripture, and from
daily experience, that the reprobate are sometimes affected with a sense
of Divine grace, some desire of mutual love must necessarily be excited in
their hearts. Thus Saul had for a time a pious disposition to love God,
from whom experiencing paternal kindness, he was allured by the charms of
his goodness. But as the persuasion of the paternal love of God is not
radically fixed in the reprobate, so they love him not reciprocally with
the sincere affection of children, but are influenced by a mercenary
disposition; for the spirit of love was given to Christ alone, that he
might instil it into his members. And this observation of Paul certainly
extends to none but the elect: “The love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us;”(1466) the same love,
which generates that confidence of invocation which I have before
mentioned. Thus, on the contrary, we see that God is wonderfully angry
with his children, whom he ceases not to love: not that he really hates
them, but because he designs to terrify them with a sense of his wrath, to
humble their carnal pride, to shake off their indolence, and to excite
them to repentance. Therefore they apprehend him to be both angry with
them, or at least with their sins, and propitious to them at the same
time; for they sincerely deprecate his wrath, and yet resort to him for
succour with tranquillity and confidence. Hence it appears, that faith is
not hypocritically counterfeited by some, who nevertheless are destitute
of true faith; but, while they are hurried away with a sudden impetuosity
of zeal, they deceive themselves by a false opinion. Nor is it to be
doubted, that indolence preoccupies them, and prevents them from properly
examining their hearts as they ought to do. It is probable that those
persons were of this description, to whom, according to John, “Jesus did
not commit himself,” notwithstanding that they believed in him, “because
he knew all men: he knew what was in man.”(1467) If multitudes did not
depart from the common faith, (I style it common, because there is a great
similitude and affinity between temporary faith and that which is living
and perpetual,) Christ would not have said to his disciples, “If ye
continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know
the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”(1468) For he addresses
those who have embraced his doctrine, and exhorts them to an increase of
faith, that the light which they have received may not be extinguished by
their own supineness. Therefore Paul claims faith as peculiar to the
elect,(1469) indicating that many decay, because they have had no living
root. Thus also Christ says in Matthew, “Every plant, which my heavenly
Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.”(1470) There is a grosser
deception in others, who are not ashamed to attempt to deceive both God
and men. James inveighs against this class of men, who impiously profane
faith by hypocritical pretensions to it.(1471) Nor would Paul require from
the children of God, a “faith unfeigned,”(1472) but because multitudes
presumptuously arrogate to themselves what they possess not, and with
their vain pretences deceive others, and sometimes even themselves.
Therefore he compares a good conscience to a vessel in which faith is
kept; because many, “having put away a good conscience, concerning faith
have made shipwreck.”(1473)

XIII. We must also remember the ambiguous signification of the word
_faith_; for frequently faith signifies the sound doctrine of piety, as in
the place which we have just cited, and in the same Epistle, where Paul
says, that deacons must hold “the mystery of the faith in a pure
conscience.”(1474) Also where he predicts the apostasy of some “from the
faith.”(1475) But, on the contrary, he says, that Timothy had been
“nourished up in the words of faith.”(1476) Again, where he says,
“avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely
so called; which some professing, have erred concerning the faith;”(1477)
whom in another place he styles “reprobates concerning the faith.”(1478)
Thus, also, when he directs Titus to “rebuke them, that they may be sound
in the faith,”(1479) by soundness, he means nothing more than that purity
of doctrine, which is so liable to be corrupted and to degenerate through
the instability of men. Since “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
are hidden in Christ,”(1480) whom faith possesses, faith is justly
extended to the whole summary of heavenly doctrines, with which it is
inseparably connected. On the contrary, it is sometimes restricted to a
particular object; as when Matthew says, that “Jesus saw their
faith,”(1481) who let down the paralytic man through the roof; and when
Christ exclaimed respecting the centurion, “I have not found so great
faith, no, not in Israel.”(1482) But it is probable, that the centurion
was wholly intent on the recovery of his son, a concern for whom wholly
occupied his mind; yet, because he was contented with the mere answer of
Christ, without being importunate for his corporeal presence, it is on
account of this circumstance that his faith is so greatly extolled. And we
have lately shown, that Paul uses faith for the gift of miracles; which is
possessed by those who are neither regenerated by the Spirit of God, nor
serious worshippers of him. In another place, also, he uses it to denote
the instruction by which we are edified in the faith; for, when he
suggests that faith will be abolished, it must undoubtedly be referred to
the ministry of the Church, which is, at present, useful to our infirmity.
In these forms of expression, however, there is an evident analogy. But
when the word “faith” is in an improper sense transferred to a
hypocritical profession, or to that which falsely assumes the name, it
should not be accounted a harsher catachresis, than when the fear of God
is used for a corrupt and perverse worship; as when it is frequently said
in the sacred history, that the foreign nations, which had been
transplanted to Samaria and its vicinity, feared the fictitious deities
and the God of Israel; which is like confounding together heaven and
earth. But our present inquiry is, what is that faith by which the
children of God are distinguished from unbelievers, by which we invoke God
as our Father, by which we pass from death to life, and by which Christ,
our eternal life and salvation, dwells in us? The force and nature of it,
I conceive, I have concisely and clearly explained.

XIV. Now, let us again examine all the parts of that definition; a careful
consideration of which, I think, will leave nothing doubtful remaining.
When we call it knowledge, we intend not such a comprehension as men
commonly have of those things which fall under the notice of their senses.
For it is so superior, that the human mind must exceed and rise above
itself, in order to attain to it. Nor does the mind which attains it
comprehend what it perceives, but being persuaded of that which it cannot
comprehend, it understands more by the certainty of this persuasion, than
it would comprehend of any human object by the exercise of its natural
capacity. Wherefore Paul beautifully expresses it in these terms: “to
comprehend what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to
know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.”(1483) For he meant to
suggest, that what our mind apprehends by faith is absolutely infinite,
and that this kind of knowledge far exceeds all understanding. Yet,
because God has revealed to his saints the secret of his will, “which had
been hidden from ages and from generations,”(1484) therefore _faith_ is in
Scripture justly styled “an acknowledgment;”(1485) and by John,
“knowledge,” when he asserts, that believers know that they are the sons
of God.(1486) And they have indeed a certain knowledge of it; but are
rather confirmed by a persuasion of the veracity of God, than taught by
any demonstration of reason. The language of Paul also indicates this:
“whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; for we
walk by faith, not by sight.” By this he shows that the things which we
understand through faith, are at a distance from us, and beyond our sight.
Whence we conclude, that the knowledge of faith consists more in certainty
than in comprehension.

XV. To express the solid constancy of the persuasion, we further say, that
it is a certain and steady knowledge. For, as faith is not content with a
dubious and versatile opinion, so neither with an obscure and perplexed
conception; but requires a full and fixed certainty, such as is commonly
obtained respecting things that have been tried and proved. For unbelief
is so deeply rooted in our hearts, and such is our propensity to it, that
though all men confess with the tongue, that God is faithful, no man can
persuade himself of the truth of it, without the most arduous exertions.
Especially when the time of trial comes, the general indecision discloses
the fault which was previously concealed. Nor is it without reason that
the Holy Spirit asserts the authority of the Divine word in terms of such
high commendation, but with a design to remedy the disease which I have
mentioned, that the promises of God may obtain full credit with us. “The
words of the Lord (says David) are pure words; as silver tried in a
furnace of earth purified seven times.”(1487) Again: “The word of the Lord
is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.”(1488) And
Solomon confirms the same, nearly in the same words: “Every word of God is
pure.”(1489) But, as the hundred and nineteenth Psalm is almost entirely
devoted to this subject, it were needless to recite any more testimonies.
Whenever God thus recommends his word to us, he, without doubt, obliquely
reprehends our unbelief; for the design of those recommendations is no
other than to eradicate perverse doubts from our hearts. There are also
many, who have such conceptions of the Divine mercy, as to receive but
very little consolation from it. For they are at the same time distressed
with an unhappy anxiety, doubting whether he will be merciful to them;
because they confine within too narrow limits that clemency, of which they
suppose themselves to be fully persuaded. For they reflect with themselves
thus: that his mercy is large and copious, bestowed upon many, and ready
for the acceptance of all; but that it is uncertain whether it will reach
them also, or, rather, whether they shall reach it. This thought, since it
stops in the midst of its course, is incomplete. Therefore it does not so
much confirm the mind with secure tranquillity, as disturb it with
restless hesitation. But very different is the meaning of “full
assurance,” (πληροφοριας,) which is always attributed to faith in the
Scriptures; and which places the goodness of God, that is clearly revealed
to us, beyond all doubt. But this cannot take place, unless we have a real
sense and experience of its sweetness in ourselves. Wherefore the apostle
from faith deduces confidence, and from confidence boldness. For this is
his language: “In Christ we have boldness and access, with confidence by
the faith of him.”(1490) These words imply that we have no right faith,
but when we can venture with tranquillity into the Divine presence. This
boldness arises only from a certain confidence of the Divine benevolence
and our salvation; which is so true, that the word “faith” is frequently
used for confidence.

XVI. The principal hinge on which faith turns is this—that we must not
consider the promises of mercy, which the Lord offers, as true only to
others, and not to ourselves; but rather make them our own, by embracing
them in our hearts. Hence arises that confidence, which the same apostle
in another place calls “peace;”(1491) unless any one would rather make
peace the effect of confidence. It is a security, which makes the
conscience calm and serene before the Divine tribunal, and without which
it must necessarily be harassed and torn almost asunder with tumultuous
trepidation, unless it happen to slumber for a moment in an oblivion of
God and itself. And indeed it is but for a moment; for it does not long
enjoy that wretched oblivion, but is most dreadfully wounded by the
remembrance, which is perpetually recurring, of the Divine judgment. In
short, no man is truly a believer, unless he be firmly persuaded, that God
is a propitious and benevolent Father to him, and promise himself every
thing from his goodness; unless he depend on the promises of the Divine
benevolence to him, and feel an undoubted expectation of salvation; as the
apostle shows in these words: “If we hold fast the beginning of our
confidence steadfast unto the end.”(1492) Here he supposes, that no man
has a good hope in the Lord, who does not glory with confidence, in being
an heir of the kingdom of heaven. He is no believer, I say, who does not
rely on the security of his salvation, and confidently triumph over the
devil and death, as Paul teaches us in this remarkable peroration: “I am
persuaded (says he) that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, shall
be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord.”(1493) Thus the same apostle is of opinion, that “the eyes of our
understanding” are not truly “enlightened,” unless we discover what is the
hope of the eternal inheritance, to which we are called.(1494) And he
every where inculcates, that we have no just apprehensions of the Divine
goodness, unless we derive from it a considerable degree of assurance.

XVII. But some one will object, that the experience of believers is very
different from this; for that, in recognizing the grace of God towards
them, they are not only disturbed with inquietude, (which frequently
befalls them,) but sometimes also tremble with the most distressing
terrors. The vehemence of temptations, to agitate their minds, is so
great, that it appears scarcely compatible with that assurance of faith of
which we have been speaking. We must therefore solve this difficulty, if
we mean to support the doctrine we have advanced. When we inculcate, that
faith ought to be certain and secure, we conceive not of a certainty
attended with no doubt, or of a security interrupted by no anxiety; but we
rather affirm, that believers have a perpetual conflict with their own
diffidence, and are far from placing their consciences in a placid calm,
never disturbed by any storms. Yet, on the other hand, we deny, however
they may be afflicted, that they ever fall and depart from that certain
confidence which they have conceived in the Divine mercy. The Scripture
proposes no example of faith more illustrious or memorable than David,
especially if you consider the whole course of his life. Yet that his mind
was not invariably serene, appears from his innumerable complaints, of
which it will be sufficient to select a few. When he rebukes his soul for
turbulent emotions, is he not angry with his unbelief? “Why (says he) art
thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? Hope thou in
God.”(1495) And, certainly, that consternation was an evident proof of
diffidence, as though he supposed himself to be forsaken by God. In
another place, also, we find a more ample confession: “I said, in my
haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes.”(1496) In another place, also,
he debates with himself in anxious and miserable perplexity, and even
raises a dispute concerning the nature of God: “Hath God forgotten to be
gracious? Will the Lord cast off for ever?” What follows is still harsher:
“And I said, I must fall; these are the changes of the right hand of the
Most High.”(1497) For, in a state of despair, he consigns himself to ruin;
and not only confesses that he is agitated with doubts, but, as vanquished
in the conflict, considers all as lost; because God has deserted him, and
turned to his destruction that hand which used to support him. Wherefore
it is not without reason that he says, “Return unto thy rest, O my
soul;”(1498) since he had experienced such fluctuations amidst the waves
of trouble. And yet, wonderful as it is, amidst these concussions, faith
sustains the hearts of the pious, and truly resembles the palm‐tree,
rising with vigour undiminished by any burdens which may be laid upon it,
but which can never retard its growth; as David, when he might appear to
be overwhelmed, yet, chiding himself, ceased not to aspire towards God.
Indeed, he who, contending with his own infirmity, strives in his
anxieties to exercise faith, is already in a great measure victorious.
Which we may infer from such passages as this: “Wait on the Lord: be of
good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart; wait, I say, on the
Lord.”(1499) He reproves himself for timidity, and repeating the same
twice, confesses himself to be frequently subject to various agitations.
In the mean time, he is not only displeased with himself for these faults,
but ardently aspires towards the correction of them. Now, if we enter into
a close and correct examination of his character and conduct, and compare
him with Ahaz, we shall discover a considerable difference. Isaiah is sent
to convey consolation to the anxiety of the impious and hypocritical king;
he addresses him in these words: “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not,”
&c.(1500) But what effect had the message on him? As it had been before
said, that “his heart was moved as the trees of the wood are moved with
the wind,”(1501) though he heard the promise, he ceased not to tremble.
This therefore is the proper reward and punishment of infidelity—so to
tremble with fear, that he who opens not the gate to himself by faith, in
the time of temptation departs from God; but, on the contrary, believers,
whom the weight of temptations bends and almost oppresses, constantly
emerge from their distresses, though not without trouble and difficulty.
And because they are conscious of their own imbecility, they pray with the
Psalmist, “Take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth.”(1502) By
these words we are taught, that they sometimes become dumb, as though
their faith were destroyed; yet that they neither fail nor turn their
backs, but persevere in their conflict, and arouse their inactivity by
prayer, that they may not be stupefied by self‐indulgence.

XVIII. To render this intelligible, it is necessary to recur to that
division of the flesh and the spirit, which we noticed in another place,
and which most clearly discovers itself in this case. The pious heart
therefore perceives a division in itself, being partly affected with
delight, through a knowledge of the Divine goodness; partly distressed
with sorrow, through a sense of its own calamity; partly relying on the
promise of the gospel; partly trembling at the evidence of its own
iniquity; partly exulting in the apprehension of life; partly alarmed by
the fear of death. This variation happens through the imperfection of
faith; since we are never so happy, during the present life, as to be
cured of all diffidence, and entirely filled and possessed by faith. Hence
those conflicts, in which the diffidence which adheres to the relics of
the flesh, rises up in opposition to the faith formed in the heart. But
if, in the mind of a believer, assurance be mixed with doubts, do we not
always come to this point, that faith consists not in a certain and clear,
but only in an obscure and perplexed knowledge of the Divine will
respecting us? Not at all. For, if we are distracted by various thoughts,
we are not therefore entirely divested of faith; neither, though harassed
by the agitations of diffidence, are we therefore immerged in its abyss;
nor, if we be shaken, are we therefore overthrown. For the invariable
issue of this contest is, that faith at length surmounts those
difficulties, from which, while it is encompassed with them, it appears to
be in danger.

XIX. Let us sum it up thus: As soon as the smallest particle of grace is
infused into our minds, we begin to contemplate the Divine countenance as
now placid, serene, and propitious to us: it is indeed a very distant
prospect, but so clear, that we know we are not deceived. Afterwards, in
proportion as we improve,—for we ought to be continually improving by
progressive advances,—we arrive at a nearer, and therefore more certain
view of him, and by continual habit he becomes more familiar to us. Thus
we see, that a mind illuminated by the knowledge of God, is at first
involved in much ignorance, which is removed by slow degrees. Yet it is
not prevented either by its ignorance of some things, or by its obscure
view of what it beholds, from enjoying a clear knowledge of the Divine
will respecting itself, which is the first and principal exercise of
faith. For, as a man who is confined in a prison, into which the sun
shines only obliquely and partially through a very small window, is
deprived of a full view of that luminary, yet clearly perceives its
splendour, and experiences its beneficial influence,—thus we, who are
bound with terrestrial and corporeal fetters, though surrounded on all
sides with great obscurity, are nevertheless illuminated, sufficiently for
all the purposes of real security, by the light of God shining ever so
feebly to discover his mercy.

XX. The apostle beautifully inculcates both these ideas in various places.
For when he says, that “we know in part, and we prophesy in part, and see
through a glass darkly,”(1503) he indicates, how very slender a portion of
that wisdom which is truly Divine, is conferred upon us in the present
life. For although these words imply, not only that faith remains
imperfect as long as we groan under the burden of the flesh, but that our
imperfection renders it necessary for us to be unremittingly employed in
acquiring further knowledge, yet he suggests, that it is impossible for
our narrow capacity to comprehend that which is infinite. And this Paul
predicates concerning the whole Church; though every individual of us is
obstructed and retarded, by his own ignorance, from making that progress
which might be wished. But what a sure and certain experience, of itself,
even the smallest particle of faith gives us, the same apostle shows in
another place, where he asserts, that “we, with open face, beholding as in
a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image.”(1504)
Such profound ignorance must necessarily involve much doubt and
trepidation; especially as our hearts are, by a kind of natural instinct,
inclined to unbelief. Besides, temptations, various and innumerable,
frequently assail us with great violence. Above all, our own conscience,
oppressed by its incumbent load of sin, sometimes complains and groans
within itself, sometimes accuses itself, sometimes murmurs in secret, and
sometimes is openly disturbed. Whether, therefore, adversity discover the
wrath of God, or the conscience find in itself any reason or cause of it,
thence unbelief derives weapons to oppose faith, which are perpetually
directed to this object, to persuade us, that God is angry with us, and
inimical to us; that we may not hope for any assistance from him, but may
dread him as our irreconcilable enemy.

XXI. To sustain these attacks, faith arms and defends itself with the word
of the Lord. And when such a temptation as this assails us,—that God is
our enemy, because he is angry with us,—faith, on the contrary, objects,
that he is merciful even when he afflicts, because chastisement proceeds
rather from love than from wrath. When it is pressed with this thought,
that God is an avenger of iniquities, it opposes the pardon provided for
all offences, whenever the sinner makes application to the Divine
clemency. Thus the pious mind, how strangely soever it may be agitated and
harassed, rises at length superior to all difficulties, nor ever suffers
its confidence in the Divine mercy to be shaken. The various disputes
which exercise and fatigue it, terminate rather in the confirmation of
that confidence. It is a proof of this, that when the saints conceive
themselves to feel most the vengeance of God, they still confide their
complaints to him, and when there is no appearance of his hearing them,
they continue to call upon him. For what end would be answered by
addressing complaint to him from whom they expected no consolation? And
they would never be disposed to call upon him, unless they believed him to
be ready to assist them.(1505) Thus the disciples, whom Christ reprehends
for the weakness of their faith, complained indeed that they were
perishing, but still they implored his assistance. Nor, when he chides
them on account of their weak faith, does he reject them from the number
of his children, or class them with unbelievers; but he excites them to
correct that fault. Therefore we repeat the assertion already made, that
faith is never eradicated from a pious heart, but continues firmly fixed,
however it may be shaken, and seem to bend this way or that; that its
light is never so extinguished or smothered, but that it lies at least
concealed under embers; and that this is an evident proof, that the word,
which is an incorruptible seed, produces fruit similar to itself, whose
germ never entirely perishes. For, though it is the last cause of despair
that can happen to saints, to perceive, according to their apprehension of
present circumstances, the hand of God lifted up for their destruction,
yet Job asserts the extent of his hope to be such, that though he should
be slain by him, he would continue to trust in him.(1506) This, then, is
the real state of the case: Unbelief is not inwardly predominant in the
hearts of the pious, but it assails them from without; nor do its weapons
mortally wound them; they only molest them, or at least inflict such
wounds as are curable. For faith, according to Paul, serves us as a
shield, which, being opposed to hostile weapons, receives their blows, and
entirely repels them, or at least breaks their force, so that they
penetrate no vital part. When faith is shaken, therefore, it is just as if
a soldier, otherwise bold, were constrained, by a violent stroke of a
javelin, to change his position and retreat a little; but when faith
itself is wounded, it is just as if his shield were broken by a blow, yet
not pierced through. For the pious mind will always recover so far as to
say, with David, “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil; for thou art with me.”(1507) To walk in the gloom of
death is certainly terrible; and believers, whatever degree of firmness
they have, cannot but dread it. But when this thought prevails, that God
is present with them, and concerned for their salvation, fear at once
gives way to security. But, as Augustine says, whatever powerful engines
the devil erects against us, when he possesses not the heart, which is the
residence of faith, he is kept at a distance. Thus, if we judge from the
event, believers not only escape in safety from every battle, so that,
receiving an accession of vigour, they are soon after prepared to enter
the field again, but we see the accomplishment of what John says, in his
canonical Epistle: “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even
our faith.”(1508) For he affirms, that it will be not only victorious in
one or in a few battles, or against some particular assault, but that it
will overcome the whole world, though it should be attacked a thousand
times.

XXII. There is another species of fear and trembling, by which,
nevertheless, the assurance of faith is so far from being impaired, that
it is more firmly established. That is, when believers, considering the
examples of the Divine vengeance against the impious as lessons given to
them, are solicitously cautious not to provoke the wrath of God against
themselves by the same crimes; or when, feeling their own misery, they
learn to place all their dependence on the Lord, without whom they
perceive themselves to be more inconstant and transient than the wind. For
when the apostle, by a representation of the punishments which the Lord
formerly inflicted on the Israelitish nation, alarms the fears of the
Corinthians, lest they should involve themselves in the same
calamities,(1509) he in no respect weakens their confidence, but shakes
off the indolence of the flesh, by which faith is rather impaired than
confirmed. Nor when, from the fall of the Jews, he takes an occasion to
exhort him that standeth to beware lest he fall,(1510) does he direct us
to waver, as though we were uncertain of our stability; but only forbids
all arrogance and presumptuous, overweening confidence in our own
strength, that the Gentiles may not proudly insult over the expelled Jews,
into whose place they have been received.(1511) In that passage, however,
he not only addresses believers, but in his discourse also includes
hypocrites, who gloried merely in external appearance. For he admonishes
not men individually, but instituting a comparison between the Jews and
the Gentiles, after having shown that the rejection of the former was a
righteous punishment for their unbelief and ingratitude, he exhorts the
latter not to lose, by pride and haughtiness, the grace of adoption
recently transferred to them. But as, in the general rejection of the
Jews, there remained some of them who fell not from the covenant of
adoption, so among the Gentiles there might possibly arise some, who,
destitute of true faith, would only be inflated with foolish and carnal
confidence, and thus abuse the goodness of God to their own ruin. But
though you should understand this to be spoken to the elect and believers,
no inconvenience would result from it. For it is one thing to repress the
temerity, which from remaining carnality sometimes discovers itself in the
saints, that it may not produce vain confidence; and another to strike the
conscience with fear, that it may not rely with full security on the mercy
of God.

XXIII. Moreover, when he teaches us to “work out our own salvation with
fear and trembling,”(1512) he only requires us to accustom ourselves, with
great self‐humiliation, to look up to the power of the Lord. For nothing
arouses us to repose all confidence and assurance of mind on the Lord, so
much as diffidence of ourselves, and anxiety arising from a consciousness
of our own misery. In which sense, we must understand this declaration of
the Psalmist, “I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy,
and in thy fear will I worship.”(1513) Whence he beautifully connects the
confidence of faith, which relies on the mercy of God, with that religious
fear by which we ought to be affected, whenever we come into the presence
of the Divine Majesty, and from its splendour, discover our extreme
impurity. Solomon also truly pronounces, “Happy is the man who feareth
alway; but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.”(1514)
But he intends that fear which will render us more cautious, not such as
would afflict and ruin us, such as, when the mind, confounded in itself,
recovers itself in God; dejected in itself, finds consolation in him; and
despairing of itself, revives with confidence in him. Wherefore nothing
prevents believers from being distressed with fear, and at the same time
enjoying the most serene consolation; as they now turn their eyes towards
their own vanity, and now direct the attention of their mind to the truth
of God. How can fear and faith, it will be asked, both reside in the same
mind? Just as, on the contrary, insensibility and anxiety. For though the
impious endeavour to acquire a habit of insensibility, that they may not
be disquieted by the fear of God, the judgment of God follows them so
closely, that they cannot attain the object of their desires. So nothing
prevents God from training his people to humility, that in their valiant
warfare they may restrain themselves within the bounds of modesty. And
that this was the design of the apostle appears from the context, where,
as the cause of fear and trembling, he assigns the good pleasure of God,
by which he gives to his people both rightly to will, and strenuously to
perform. In the same sense we should understand this prediction: “The
children of Israel shall fear the Lord and his goodness;”(1515) for not
only piety produces a reverence of God, but also the sweetness of grace
fills a man that is dejected in himself, with fear and admiration; causing
him to depend upon God, and humbly submit himself to his power.

XXIV. Yet we give no encouragement to the very pestilent philosophy, begun
to be broached by some semi‐Papists in the present day. For, being unable
to defend that gross notion of faith as a doubtful opinion, which has been
taught in the schools, they resort to another invention, and propose a
confidence mixed with unbelief. They confess, that whenever we look to
Christ, we find in him a sufficient ground of comfortable hope; but
because we are always unworthy of all those blessings which are offered to
us in Christ, they wish us to fluctuate and hesitate in the view of our
own unworthiness. In short, they place the conscience in such a state
between hope and fear, that it alternately inclines to both. They also
connect hope and fear together, so that when the former rises, it
depresses the latter, and when the latter lifts its head, the former
falls. Thus Satan, finding that those open engines, which he heretofore
employed to destroy the assurance of faith, are now no longer of any
avail, secretly endeavours to undermine it. But what kind of confidence
would that be, which should frequently give way to despair? If you
consider Christ, (say they,) salvation is certain; if you return to
yourself, condemnation is certain. Diffidence and good hope, therefore,
must of necessity alternately prevail in your mind. As though we ought to
consider Christ as standing apart from us, and not rather as dwelling
within us. For we therefore expect salvation from him, not because he
appears to us at a great distance, but because, having ingrafted us into
his body, he makes us partakers not only of all his benefits, but also of
himself. Wherefore I thus retort their own argument: If you consider
yourself, condemnation is certain; but since Christ, with all his
benefits, is communicated to you, so that all that he has becomes yours,
and you become a member of him, and one with him,—his righteousness covers
your sins; his salvation supersedes your condemnation; he interposes with
his merit, that your unworthiness may not appear in the Divine presence.
Indeed, the truth is, that we ought by no means to separate Christ from
us, or ourselves from him; but, with all our might, firmly to retain that
fellowship by which he has united us to himself. Thus the apostle teaches
us: “The body (says he) is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life
because of righteousness.”(1516) According to this frivolous notion of
these persons, he ought to have said, Christ indeed has life in himself;
but you, being sinners, remain obnoxious to death and condemnation. But he
speaks in a very different manner; for he states, that the condemnation
which we demerit in ourselves is swallowed up by the salvation of Christ;
and in confirmation of this, uses the same argument as I have adduced,
that Christ is not without us, but dwells within us; and not only adheres
to us by an indissoluble connection of fellowship, but by a certain
wonderful communion coalesces daily more and more into one body with us,
till he becomes altogether one with us. Nor do I deny, what I have lately
said, that some interruptions of faith at times occur, as its imbecility
is by the force of violence inclined to this or the other direction, Thus,
in the thick gloom of temptations, its light is smothered; but, whatever
befalls it, it never discontinues its efforts in seeking God.

XXV. Bernard reasons in a similar manner, when he professedly discusses
this subject, in the Fifth Homily, on the Dedication of the Temple. “By
the goodness of God, meditating sometimes on the soul, I think I discover
in it, as it were, two opposite characters. If I view it as it is in
itself and of itself, I cannot utter a greater truth concerning it, than
that it is reduced to nothing. What need is there at present to enumerate
all its miseries, how it is loaded with sins, enveloped in darkness,
entangled with allurements, inflamed with inordinate desires, subject to
the passions, filled with illusions, always prone to evil, inclined to
every vice, and finally full of ignominy and confusion? Now, if even our
righteousnesses, when viewed in the light of truth, be found to be ‘as
filthy rags,’(1517) what judgment will be formed of our acknowledged
unrighteousness? ‘If the light that is in’ us ‘be darkness, how great is
that darkness!’(1518) What then? Man is undoubtedly become like vanity;
man is reduced to nothing; man is nothing. Yet how is he entirely nothing,
whom God magnifies? How is he nothing, on whom the heart of God is fixed?
Brethren, let us revive again. Although we are nothing in our own hearts,
perhaps there may be something for us latent in the heart of God. O Father
of mercies, O Father of the miserable, how dost thou fix thine heart on
us! For thine heart is where thy treasure is. But how are we thy treasure,
if we are nothing? All nations are before thee as though they existed not;
they must be considered as nothing. That is, before thee; not within thee;
thus it is in the judgment of thy truth; but not thus in the affection of
thy clemency. Thou callest things which are not, as though they were; and
therefore they are not, because thou callest things which are not; yet
they are, because thou callest them. For though they are not, with
reference to themselves, yet with thee they are; according to this
expression of Paul: ‘Not of works, but of him that calleth.’ ”(1519) After
this, Bernard says, that there is a wonderful connection between these two
considerations. Things which are connected with each other, certainly do
not reciprocally destroy each other; which he also more plainly declares
in the following conclusion: “Now, if we diligently examine what we are in
both considerations,—how in one view we are nothing, and in the other how
we are magnified,—I conceive that our boasting appears to be restrained;
but perhaps it is more increased, and indeed established, that we may
glory not in ourselves, but in the Lord. If we reflect, if he has decreed
to save us, we shall shortly be delivered; this is sufficient to recover
us. But ascending to a loftier and more extensive prospect, let us seek
the city of God, let us seek his temple, let us seek his palace, let us
seek his spouse. I have not forgotten, but with fear and reverence I say,
We are; but in the heart of God. We are; but by his condescending favour,
not by our own merit.”

XXVI. Now, the fear of the Lord, which is universally ascribed to all the
saints, and which is called sometimes “the beginning of wisdom,”(1520)
sometimes “wisdom”(1521) itself, although it be but one, proceeds from a
twofold apprehension of him. For God requires the reverence of a Father
and of a Master. Therefore he who truly desires to worship him, will study
to pay him the obedience of a son and the submission of a servant. The
Lord, by the prophet, distinguishes the obedience which is paid to him as
a father, by the appellation of honour; and the service which he receives
as a master, by that of fear. “A son (says he) honoureth his father, and a
servant his master. If, then, I be a father, where is mine honour? And if
I be a master, where is my fear?”(1522) But notwithstanding his
distinction between them, you see how he confounds them together. Let the
fear of the Lord therefore with us be a reverence mingled with this honour
and fear. Nor is it surprising, that the same mind cherishes both these
affections; for he who considers what a Father God is to us, has ample
reason, even though there were no hell, to dread his displeasure more than
any death. But, such is the propensity of our nature to the licentiousness
of transgression, that in order to restrain it by every possible method,
we should at the same time indulge this reflection, that all iniquity is
an abomination to the Lord, under whose power we live, and whose vengeance
they will not escape, who provoke his wrath against them by the wickedness
of their lives.

XXVII. Now, the assertion of John, that “there is no fear in love, but
perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment,”(1523) is not at
all repugnant to what we have advanced. For he speaks of the terror of
unbelief, between which and the fear of believers there is a wide
difference. For the impious fear not God from a dread of incurring his
displeasure, if they could do it with impunity; but because they know him
to be armed with vindictive power, they tremble with horror at hearing of
his wrath. And thus also they fear his wrath, because they apprehend it to
be impending over them, because they every moment expect it to fall on
their heads. But the faithful, as we have observed, fear his displeasure
more than punishment, and are not disturbed with the fear of punishment,
as though it were impending over them, but are rendered more cautious that
they may not incur it. Thus the apostle, when addressing believers, says,
“Let no man deceive you with vain words; for, because of these things
cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience [or
unbelief.]”(1524) He threatens not its descending on them; but admonishes
them to consider the wrath of the Lord prepared for the impious, on
account of the crimes which he had enumerated, that they may avoid
tempting it. It seldom happens, however, that the reprobate are aroused
merely by simple threatenings; but, on the contrary, being already
obdurate and insensible, when God thunders from heaven, if it be only in
words, they rather harden themselves in rebellion; but when they feel the
stroke of his hand, they are compelled to fear him, whether they will or
not. This is commonly called a servile fear, in opposition to a filial
fear, which is ingenuous and voluntary. Some persons curiously introduce
an intermediate species of fear; because that servile and constrained
affection sometimes subdues men’s minds, so that they voluntarily approach
to the fear of God.

XXVIII. Now, in the Divine benevolence, which is affirmed to be the object
of faith, we apprehend the possession of salvation and everlasting life to
be obtained. For, if no good can be wanting when God is propitious, we
have a sufficient certainty of salvation, when he himself assures us of
his love. “O God, cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved,”(1525)
says the Psalmist. Hence the Scriptures represent this as the sum of our
salvation, that he has “abolished” all “enmity,”(1526) and received us
into his favour. In which they imply, that since God is reconciled to us,
there remains no danger, but that all things will prosper with us.
Wherefore faith, having apprehended the love of God, has promises for the
present life and the life to come, and a solid assurance of all blessings;
but it is such an assurance as may be derived from the Divine word. For
faith certainly promises itself neither longevity, nor honour, nor wealth,
in the present state; since the Lord has not been pleased to appoint any
of these things for us; but is contented with this assurance, that
whatever we may want of the conveniences or necessaries of this life, yet
God will never leave us. But its principal security consists in an
expectation of the future life, which is placed beyond all doubt by the
word of God. For whatever miseries and calamities may on earth await those
who are the objects of the love of God, they cannot prevent the Divine
benevolence from being a source of complete felicity. Therefore, when we
meant to express the perfection of blessedness, we have mentioned the
grace of God, as the fountain from which every species of blessings flows
down to us. And we may generally observe in the Scriptures, that when they
treat not only of eternal salvation, but of any blessing we enjoy, our
attention is recalled to the love of God. For which reason David says,
that “The loving‐kindness of God,” when experienced in a pious heart, “is
better” and more desirable “than life” itself.(1527) Finally, if we have
an abundance of all things to the extent of our desires, but are uncertain
of the love or hatred of God, our prosperity will be cursed, and therefore
miserable. But if the paternal countenance of God shine on us, even our
miseries will be blessed, because they will be converted into aids of our
salvation.(1528) Thus Paul, after an enumeration of all possible
adversities, glories that they can never separate us from the love of God;
and in his prayers, he always begins with the grace of God, from which all
prosperity proceeds. David likewise opposes the Divine favour alone
against all the terrors which disturb us: “Though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death, (says he,) I will fear no evil, for thou
art with me.”(1529) And we always feel our minds wavering, unless,
contented with the grace of God, they seek their peace in it, and are
deeply impressed with the sentiment of the Psalmist: “Blessed is the
nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his
own inheritance.”(1530)

XXIX. We make the foundation of faith to be the gratuitous promise; for on
that faith properly rests. For, although faith admits the veracity of God
in all things, whether he command or prohibit, whether he promise or
threaten; though it obediently receives his injunctions, carefully
observes his prohibitions, and attends to his threatenings,—yet with the
promise it properly begins, on that it stands, and in that it ends. For it
seeks in God for life, which is found, not in precepts nor in
denunciations of punishments, but in the promise of mercy, and in that
only which is gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which sends us back
to our own works, promises life to us only if we find it in ourselves.
Therefore, if we wish our faith not to tremble and waver, we must support
it with the promise of salvation, which is voluntarily and liberally
offered us by the Lord, rather in consideration of our misery, than in
respect of our worthiness. Wherefore the apostle denominates the gospel
“the word of faith;”(1531) a character which he denies both to the
precepts and to the promises of the law; since there is nothing that can
establish faith, but that liberal embassy by which God reconciles the
world to himself. Hence also the same apostle frequently connects faith
with the gospel; as when he states, that “the ministry of the gospel was
committed to him for obedience to the faith;” that it is “the power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth;” that therein is the
“righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.”(1532) Nor is this to
be wondered at; for the gospel being “the ministry of
reconciliation,”(1533) there is no other sufficient testimony of the
Divine benevolence towards us, the knowledge of which is necessary to
faith. When we assert, therefore, that faith rests on the gratuitous
promise, we deny not that believers embrace and revere every part of the
Divine word, but we point out the promise of mercy as the peculiar object
of faith. Thus believers ought to acknowledge God as a judge and avenger
of crimes; yet they fix their eyes peculiarly on his clemency; described
for their contemplation as “gracious and full of compassion; slow to
anger, and of great mercy; good to all, and diffusing his tender mercies
over all his works.”(1534)

XXX. Nor do I regard the clamours of Pighius, or any such snarlers, who
censure this restriction, as though it divided faith, and comprehended
only one branch of it. I grant that, as I have already said, the general
object of faith (as they express themselves) is the veracity of God,
whether he threaten, or give us a hope of his grace. Wherefore the apostle
attributes this to faith, that Noah feared the destruction of the world
while it was yet unseen.(1535) If the fear of impending punishment was the
work of faith, threatenings ought not to be excluded from the definition
of it. This indeed is true; but these cavillers unjustly charge us with
denying that faith respects every part of the word of God. For we only
intend to establish these two points; first, that it never stands firmly
till it comes to the gratuitous promise; secondly, that we are reconciled
to God only as it unites us to Christ. Both these points are worthy of
observation. We are inquiring for a faith which may distinguish the sons
of God from the reprobate, and believers from unbelievers. If any man
believes the justice of the Divine commands and the truth of the Divine
threatenings, must he therefore be called a believer? By no means.
Therefore faith can have no stability, unless it be placed on the Divine
mercy. Now, to what purpose do we argue concerning faith? Is it not that
we may understand the way of salvation? But how is faith saving, but by
ingrafting us into the body of Christ? There will be no absurdity, then,
if, in the definition of it, we insist on its principal effect, and as a
difference, add to the genus that character which separates believers from
unbelievers. In a word, these malevolent men have nothing to carp at in
this doctrine, without involving in the same reprehension with us, the
apostle Paul, who particularly styles the gospel “the word of
faith.”(1536)

XXXI. Hence, again, we infer, what has been before stated, that the word
is as necessary to faith, as the living root of the tree is to the fruit;
because, according to David, none can trust in God but those who know his
name.(1537) But this knowledge proceeds not from every man’s own
imagination, but from the testimony which God himself gives of his own
goodness. This the same Psalmist confirms in another place: “Thy salvation
according to thy word.”(1538) Again: “Save me: I hoped in thy word.”(1539)
Where we must observe the relation of faith to the word, and that
salvation is the consequence of it. Yet we exclude not the Divine power,
by a view of which, unless faith be supported, it will never ascribe to
God the honour that is due to him. Paul seems to relate a trifling or
uninteresting circumstance concerning Abraham, when he says, that he was
persuaded that God, who had promised him the blessed seed, “was able also
to perform.”(1540) In another place, respecting himself he says, “I know
whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which
I have committed unto him against that day.”(1541) But if any one
considers, how many doubts respecting the power of God frequently intrude
themselves, he will fully acknowledge, that they who magnify it as it
deserves, have made no small progress in faith. We shall all confess, that
God is able to do whatever he pleases; but whilst the smallest temptation
strikes us with consternation and terror, it is evident that we derogate
from the Divine power, to which we prefer the menaces of Satan in
opposition to the promises of God. This is the reason why Isaiah, when he
would impress the hearts of the people with an assurance of salvation,
discourses in so magnificent a manner concerning the infinite power of
God. He frequently appears, after having begun to treat of the hope of
pardon and reconciliation, to digress to another subject, and to wander
through prolix and unnecessary circumlocutions, celebrating the wonders of
the Divine government in the machine of heaven and earth, and the whole
order of nature: yet there is nothing but what is applicable to the
present subject; for, unless the omnipotence of God be presented to our
eyes, our ears will not attend to his word, or not esteem it according to
its worth. Moreover, the Scripture there speaks of his effectual power;
for piety, as we have elsewhere seen, always makes a useful and practical
application of the power of God; and particularly proposes to itself those
of his works in which he has discovered himself as a father. Hence the
frequent mention of redemption in the Scriptures, from which the
Israelites might learn, that God, who had once been the author of
salvation, would be its everlasting preserver. David also teaches us by
his own example, that the private benefits which God has conferred on an
individual, conduce to the confirmation of his faith for the future: even
when he seems to have deserted us, we ought to extend our views further,
so as to derive encouragement from his ancient benefits, as it is said in
another psalm: “I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works,”
&c.(1542) Again: “I will remember the works of the Lord: surely I will
remember thy wonders of old.”(1543) But since, without the word, all our
conceptions of the power and works of God are unprofitable and transient,
we have sufficient reason for asserting, that there can be no faith,
without the illumination of Divine grace. But here a question might be
raised—What must be thought of Sarah and Rebecca, both of whom, apparently
impelled by the zeal of faith, transgressed the limits of the word? Sarah,
when she ardently desired the promised son, gave her maid‐servant to her
husband. That she sinned in many respects, is not to be denied; but I now
refer to her error in being carried away by her zeal, and not restraining
herself within the bounds of the Divine word. Yet it is certain, that this
desire proceeded from faith. Rebecca, having been divinely assured of the
election of her son Jacob, procures him the benediction by a sinful
artifice; she deceives her husband, the witness and minister of the grace
of God; she constrains her son to utter falsehoods; she corrupts the truth
of God by various frauds and impostures; finally, by exposing his promise
to ridicule, she does all in her power to destroy it. And yet this
transaction, however criminal and reprehensible, was not unaccompanied
with faith; because she had to overcome many obstacles, that she might
aspire earnestly to that which, without any expectation of worldly
advantage, was pregnant with great troubles and dangers. So we must not
pronounce the holy patriarch Isaac to be entirely destitute of faith,
because, after having been divinely apprized of the translation of the
honour to his younger son, he nevertheless ceases not to be partial to
Esau, his first‐born. These examples certainly teach that errors are
frequently mixed with faith, yet that faith, when real, always retains the
preëminence. For, as the particular error of Rebecca did not annul the
effect of the benediction, so neither did it destroy the faith which
generally predominated in her mind, and was the principle and cause of
that action. Nevertheless, Rebecca, in this instance, has discovered how
liable the human mind is to error, as soon as it allows itself the
smallest license. But though our deficiency or imbecility obscures faith,
yet it does not extinguish it: in the mean time it reminds us how
solicitously we ought to attend to the declarations of God; and confirms
what we have said, that faith decays unless it be supported by the word;
as the minds of Sarah, Isaac, and Rebecca, would have been lost in their
obliquities, if they had not, by the secret restraint of God, been kept in
obedience to the word.

XXXII. Again: it is not without reason that we include all the promises in
Christ;(1544) as the apostle in the knowledge of him includes the whole
gospel; and in another place teaches, that “all the promises of God in him
are yea, and in him amen.”(1545) The reason of this is plain. For, if God
promises any thing, he gives a proof of his benevolence; so that there is
no promise of his which is not a testimony of his love. Nor does it affect
the argument, that the impious, when they are loaded with great and
continual benefits from the Divine goodness, render themselves obnoxious
to a heavier judgment. For since they neither think nor acknowledge that
they receive those things from the hand of the Lord,—or if ever they
acknowledge it, yet they never reflect within themselves on his
goodness,—they cannot thereby be instructed concerning his mercy, any more
than the brutes, who, according to the circumstances of their condition,
receive the same effusion of his liberality, but never perceive it. Nor is
it any more repugnant to our argument, that by generally rejecting the
promises designed for them, they draw down on themselves severer
vengeance. For although the efficacy of the promises is manifested only
when they have obtained credit with us, yet their force and propriety are
never extinguished by our unbelief or ingratitude. Therefore, when the
Lord by his promises invites a man not only to receive, but also to
meditate on the effects of his goodness, he at the same time gives him a
declaration of his love. Whence we must return to this principle, that
every promise is an attestation of the Divine love to us. But it is beyond
all controversy, that no man is loved by God but in Christ;(1546) he is
the “beloved Son,” in whom the love of the Father perpetually rests, and
then from him diffuses itself to us; as Paul says, that we are “accepted
in the beloved.”(1547) It must therefore be communicated to us by his
mediation.(1548) Wherefore the apostle, in another place, calls him “our
peace,”(1549) and elsewhere represents him as the bond by which God is
united to us in his paternal love. It follows, that whenever any promise
is presented to us, our eyes must be directed to him; and that Paul is
correct in stating, that all the promises of God are confirmed and
accomplished in him.(1550) This is opposed by some examples. For it is not
credible that Naaman the Syrian, when he inquired of the prophet
respecting the right method of worshipping God,(1551) was instructed
concerning the Mediator; yet his piety is commended. Cornelius,(1552) a
Gentile and Roman, could scarcely be acquainted with what was not
universally or clearly known among the Jews; yet his benefactions and
prayers were acceptable to God; and the sacrifices of Naaman received the
approbation of the prophet, which neither of these persons could have
obtained without faith. Similar was the case of the eunuch to whom Philip
was conducted;(1553) who, unless he had been possessed of some faith,
would never have incurred the labour and expense of a long and difficult
journey, for the sake of worshipping at Jerusalem. Yet we see how, on
being interrogated by Philip, he betrayed his ignorance of the Mediator. I
confess, indeed, that their faith was in some measure implicit, not only
with respect to the person of Christ, but with respect to the power and
office assigned him by the Father. At the same time it is certain that
they had imbibed principles which afforded them some notion of Christ,
however slight; nor should this be thought strange; for the eunuch would
not have hastened from a remote country to Jerusalem to adore an unknown
God; nor did Cornelius spend so much time, after having once embraced the
Jewish religion, without acquainting himself with the rudiments of sound
doctrine. With regard to Naaman, it would have been extremely absurd for
Elisha, who directed him concerning the minutest particulars, to have been
silent on the most important subject. Although their knowledge of Christ,
therefore, was obscure, yet to suppose that they had none is unreasonable;
because they practised the sacrifices of the law, which must have been
distinguished by their end, that is, Christ, from the illegitimate
sacrifices of the heathen.

XXXIII. This simple and external demonstration of the Divine word ought,
indeed, to be fully sufficient for the production of faith, if it were not
obstructed by our blindness and perverseness. But such is our propensity
to error, that our mind can never adhere to Divine truth; such is our
dulness, that we can never discern the light of it. Therefore nothing is
effected by the word, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Whence
it appears, that faith is far superior to human intelligence. Nor is it
enough for the mind to be illuminated by the Spirit of God, unless the
heart also be strengthened and supported by his power. On this point, the
schoolmen are altogether erroneous, who, in the discussion of faith,
regard it as a simple assent of the understanding, entirely neglecting the
confidence and assurance of the heart. Faith, therefore, is a singular
gift of God in two respects; both as the mind is enlightened to understand
the truth of God, and as the heart is established in it. For the Holy
Spirit not only originates faith, but increases it by degrees, till he
conducts us by it all the way to the heavenly kingdom. “That good thing,”
says Paul, “which was committed unto thee, keep, by the Holy Ghost which
dwelleth in us.”(1554) If it be urged, that Paul declares the Spirit to be
given to us “by the hearing of faith,”(1555) this objection is easily
answered. If there were only one gift of the Spirit, it would be absurd to
represent the Spirit as the effect of faith, of which he is the author and
cause; but when the apostle is treating of the gifts with which God adorns
his Church, to lead it, by advancements in faith, forwards to perfection,
we need not wonder that he ascribes those gifts to faith, which prepares
us for their reception. It is accounted by the world exceedingly
paradoxical, when it is affirmed, that no one can believe in Christ, but
he to whom it is given. But this is partly for want of considering the
depth and sublimity of heavenly wisdom, and the extreme dulness of man in
apprehending the mysteries of God, and partly from not regarding that firm
and steadfast constancy of heart, which is the principal branch of faith.

XXXIV. But if, as Paul tells us, no one is acquainted with the will of a
man but “the spirit of a man which is in him,”(1556) how could man be
certain of the will of God? And if we are uncertain respecting the truth
of God in those things which are the subjects of our present
contemplation, how should we have a greater certainty of it, when the Lord
promises such things as no eye sees and no heart conceives? Human sagacity
is here so completely lost, that the first step to improvement, in the
Divine school, is to forsake it. For, like an interposing veil,(1557) it
prevents us from discovering the mysteries of God, which are revealed only
to babes.(1558) “For flesh and blood hath not revealed,”(1559) and “the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are
foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.”(1560) The aids of the Spirit therefore are
necessary, or rather it is his influence alone that is efficacious here.
“Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his
counsellor?”(1561) but “the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God;”(1562) and through him, “we have the mind of Christ.”(1563)
“No man can come to me (says he) except the Father, which hath sent me,
draw him. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the
Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he
which is of God.” Therefore, as we can never come to Christ, unless we are
drawn by the Spirit of God, so when we are drawn, we are raised both in
mind and in heart above the reach of our own understanding. For
illuminated by him, the soul receives, as it were, new eyes for the
contemplation of heavenly mysteries, by the splendour of which it was
before dazzled. And thus the human intellect, irradiated by the light of
the Holy Spirit, then begins to relish those things which pertain to the
kingdom of God, for which before it had not the smallest taste. Wherefore
Christ’s two disciples receive no benefit from his excellent discourse to
them on the mysteries of his kingdom,(1564) till he opens their
understanding that they may understand the Scriptures. Thus, though the
apostles were taught by his Divine mouth, yet the Spirit of Truth must be
sent to them, to instil into their minds the doctrine which they had heard
with their ears.(1565) The word of God is like the sun shining on all to
whom it is preached; but without any benefit to the blind. But in this
respect we are all blind by nature; therefore it cannot penetrate into our
minds, unless the internal teacher, the Spirit, make way for it by his
illumination.

XXXV. In a former part of this work, relating to the corruption of nature,
we have shown more at large the inability of men to believe; therefore I
shall not fatigue the reader by a repetition of the same things. Let it
suffice that faith itself, which we possess not by nature, but which is
given us by the Spirit, is called by Paul “the spirit of faith.”(1566)
Therefore he prays “that God would fulfil,” in the Thessalonians, “all the
good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power.”(1567) By
calling faith “the work” of God, and “the good pleasure of his goodness,”
he denies it to be the proper effect of human exertion; and not content
with that, he adds that it is a specimen of the Divine power. When he says
to the Corinthians, that faith stands “not in the wisdom of men, but in
the power of God,”(1568) he speaks indeed of external miracles; but
because the reprobate have no eyes to behold them, he comprehends also the
inward seal which he elsewhere mentions. And that he may more
illustriously display his liberality in so eminent a gift, God deigns not
to bestow it promiscuously on all, but by a singular privilege imparts it
to whom he will. We have already cited testimonies to prove this point.
Augustine, who is a faithful expositor of them, says, “It was in order to
teach us that the act of believing is owing to the Divine gift, not to
human merit, that our Saviour declared, ‘No man can come to me, except the
Father which hath sent me draw him;(1569) and except it were given unto
him of my Father.’(1570) It is wonderful, that two persons hear; one
despises, the other ascends. Let him who despises, impute it to himself;
let him who ascends, not arrogate it to himself.” In another place he
says, “Wherefore is it given to one, not to another? I am not ashamed to
reply, This is a depth of the cross. From I know not what depth of the
Divine judgments, which we cannot scrutinize, proceeds all our ability.
That I can, I see; whence I can, I see not; unless that I see thus far,
that it is of God. But why one, and not another? It is too much for me; it
is an abyss, a depth of the cross. I can exclaim with admiration, but not
demonstrate it in disputation.” The sum of the whole is this—that Christ,
when he illuminates us with faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same
time ingrafts us into his body, that we may become partakers of all his
benefits.

XXXVI. It next remains, that what the mind has imbibed, be transfused into
the heart. For the word of God is not received by faith, if it floats on
the surface of the brain; but when it has taken deep root in the heart, so
as to become an impregnable fortress to sustain and repel all the assaults
of temptation. But if it be true that the right apprehension of the mind
proceeds from the illumination of the Spirit, his energy is far more
conspicuous in such a confirmation of the heart; the diffidence of the
heart being greater than the blindness of the mind; and the furnishing of
the heart with assurance being more difficult than the communication of
knowledge to the understanding. Therefore the Spirit acts as a seal, to
seal on our hearts those very promises, the certainty of which he has
previously impressed on our minds, and serves as an earnest to confirm and
establish them. “After that ye believed,” says the apostle, “ye were
sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our
inheritance.”(1571) Do you see how he shows that the hearts of believers
are impressed by the Spirit, as by a seal? How, for this reason, he calls
him “the Spirit of promise,” because he ratifies the gospel to us? So, to
the Corinthians, he says, “He which hath anointed us, is God; who hath
also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”(1572)
And in another place, where he speaks of the confidence and boldness of
hope, he makes “the earnest of the Spirit”(1573) the foundation of it.

XXXVII. I have not forgotten what I have already observed, and the
remembrance of which experience incessantly renews, that faith is agitated
with various doubts; so that the minds of the pious are seldom at ease, or
at best enjoy not a state of perpetual tranquillity. But whatever assaults
they may sustain, they either emerge from the very gulf of temptation, or
remain firm in their station. This assurance alone nourishes and supports
faith, while we are satisfied of what is declared by the Psalmist, “God is
our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will we
not fear, though the earth be removed, and the mountains be carried into
the midst of the sea.”(1574) This most delightful repose is celebrated
also in another psalm: “I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord
sustained me.”(1575) Not that David enjoyed a happy cheerfulness of soul
perpetually flowing on in one even tenor; but having tasted the grace of
God according to the proportion of his faith, he glories in intrepidly
despising whatever could disquiet the peace of his mind. Therefore the
Scripture, intending to exhort us to faith, commands us to “be quiet.” In
Isaiah, “In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.”(1576) In
the Psalms, “Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him.”(1577) With
which corresponds the observation of the apostle to the Hebrews, “Ye have
need of patience.”(1578)

XXXVIII. Hence we may judge, how pernicious that dogma of the schoolmen
is, that it is impossible to decide concerning the favour of God towards
us, any otherwise than from moral conjecture, as every individual may deem
himself not unworthy of it. If it must be determined by our works how the
Lord is affected towards us, I admit we cannot attain this object even by
a very slight conjecture; but as faith ought to correspond to the simple
and gratuitous promise, there remains no room for doubting. For with what
confidence, pray, shall we be armed, if we reason that God is propitious
to us on this condition, provided the purity of our life deserve it? But
having determined on a separate discussion of these points, I shall pursue
them no further at present; especially since it is manifest that nothing
is more opposite to faith than either conjecture or any thing else
approaching to doubt. And they very mischievously pervert to this purpose
the observation of the Preacher, which is frequently in their mouths: “No
man knoweth whether he is worthy of hatred or of love.”(1579) For not to
observe that this passage is falsely rendered in the Vulgate translation,
yet the meaning of Solomon, in such expressions, must be clear even to
children; it is, that if any one wishes, from the present state of things,
to judge who are the objects of Divine love or hatred, he labours in vain,
and distresses himself to no good purpose; since “there is one event to
the righteous and to the wicked; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that
sacrificeth not.”(1580) Whence it follows that God neither testifies his
love to those whom he prospers with success, nor invariably discovers his
hatred against those whom he plunges into affliction. And this observation
is designed to reprove the vanity of the human understanding; since it is
so extremely stupid respecting things most necessary to be known. He had
just before said, “That which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts;
as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so
that a man hath no preëminence above a beast.”(1581) If any one would
infer from this, that the opinion which we hold of the immortality of the
soul rests upon mere conjecture, would he not be deservedly deemed insane?
Are those persons, then, in a state of sanity, who conclude that there is
no certainty of the favour of God, because it cannot be attained from the
carnal contemplation of present things?

XXXIX. But they plead that it is rash presumption in men to arrogate to
themselves an undoubted knowledge of the Divine will. This, indeed, I
would concede to them, if we pretended to subject the incomprehensible
counsel of God to the slenderness of our understanding. But when we simply
assert with Paul, that “we have received, not the spirit of the world, but
the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God,”(1582) what opposition can they make to us, without at
the same time insulting the Spirit of God? But if it be a horrible
sacrilege to accuse the revelation which proceeds from him either of
falsehood, or of uncertainty, or of ambiguity, wherein do we err in
affirming its certainty? But they exclaim, that we betray great temerity,
in thus presuming to boast of the Spirit of Christ. Who could believe the
stupidity of men desirous of being esteemed teachers of the world, to be
so extreme as to stumble in this shameful manner at the first elements of
religion? It would certainly be incredible to me, if it were not proved by
the writings which they have published. Paul pronounces them alone to be
the sons of God, who are led by his Spirit:(1583) these men will have
those who are the sons of God to be led by their own spirit, but to be
destitute of the Spirit of God. He teaches, that we call God our Father at
the suggestion of the Spirit, who “beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God:”(1584) these men, though they forbid not all
invocation of God, yet deprive us of the Spirit, by whose influence alone
he can be rightly invoked. He denies them to be the servants of Christ,
who are not led by the Spirit of Christ:(1585) these men invent a sort of
Christianity, to which the Spirit of Christ is not necessary. He admits no
hope of a happy resurrection, unless we experience the Spirit dwelling in
us:(1586) these men fabricate a hope unattended by such experience. But
perhaps they will answer, that they deny not the necessity of our being
endued with the Spirit; but that it is the part of modesty and humility
not to acknowledge our possession of him. What, then, is the meaning of
the apostle in this exhortation to the Corinthians—“Examine yourselves,
whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves; know ye not yourselves,
how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”(1587) But says
John, “We know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given
us.”(1588) And do we not call in question the promises of Christ, when we
wish to be accounted the servants of God without the possession of his
Spirit, whom he has announced that he will pour out upon all his
people?(1589) Do we not injure the Holy Spirit, if we separate faith from
him, which is his peculiar work? These being the first rudiments of piety,
it is a proof of most miserable blindness, that Christians are censured as
arrogant for presuming to glory in the presence of the Holy Spirit,
without which glorying Christianity itself cannot exist. But they
exemplify the truth of Christ’s assertion, “The world knoweth not the
Spirit of truth; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be
in you.”(1590)

XL. Not satisfied with one attempt to destroy the stability of faith, they
assail it again from another quarter; by arguing, that although we may
form a judgment concerning the favour of God from the present state of our
righteousness, yet the knowledge of final perseverance remains in
suspense. Truly we are left in possession of an admirable confidence of
salvation, if we can only conclude from mere conjecture that we are in the
favour of God at the present instant, but are utterly ignorant what may be
our fate to‐morrow. The apostle expresses a very different opinion: “I am
persuaded (says he) that neither life, nor death, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”(1591) They
attempt to evade the force of this, by a frivolous pretence that the
apostle had it from a particular revelation; but they are too closely
pressed to avail themselves of this evasion. For he is there treating of
the benefits resulting from faith to all believers in common, not of any
which were peculiar to his own experience. But the same apostle, they say,
in another place, excites fear in us, by the mention of our imbecility and
inconstancy. “Let him (says he) that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest
he fall.”(1592) It is true; but not a fear by which we may be thrown into
consternation, but from which we may learn to “humble ourselves,” as Peter
expresses it, “under the mighty hand of God.” Besides, how preposterous is
it to limit to a moment of time the assurance of faith, whose nature it is
to go beyond the bounds of the present life, and reach forward to a future
immortality! Since believers, then, ascribe it to the grace of God that
they are illuminated by his Spirit, and enjoy through faith a
contemplation of the heavenly life, such a glorying is so remote from
arrogance, that, if any one be ashamed to confess it, he rather betrays
extreme ingratitude by a criminal suppression of the Divine goodness, than
gives an evidence of modesty or humility.

XLI. Because we thought that the nature of faith could not be better or
more clearly expressed than by the substance of the promise, which is the
proper foundation on which it rests, and the removal of which would
occasion its fall or annihilation,—it is from the promise, therefore, that
we have taken our definition, which, nevertheless, is not at all at
variance with that definition, or rather description, of the apostle,
which he accommodates to his argument; where he says, that “faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”(1593) For
by ὑποστασις, which is the word he uses, and which is rendered substance,
he intends a prop, as it were, on which the pious mind rests and reclines;
as though he had said, that faith is a certain and secure possession of
those things which are promised to us by God. Unless any one would rather
understand ὑποστασις of confidence, to which I shall not object, though I
adopt that idea which is the more generally received. Again: to signify
that even till the last day, when the books shall be opened, these objects
are too sublime to be perceived by our senses, seen with our eyes, or
handled with our hands; and that, in the mean time, they are enjoyed by us
only as we exceed the capacity of our own understanding, extend our views
beyond all terrestrial things, and even rise above ourselves; he has
added, that this security of possession relates to things which are the
objects of hope, and therefore invisible. For “hope that is seen (as Paul
observes) is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope
for?”(1594) But when he calls it an evidence, or proof, or (as Augustine
has frequently rendered it) a conviction of things not seen, (for the
Greek word is ἐλεγχος,) it is just as though he had called it the evidence
of things not apparent, the vision of things not seen, the perspicuity of
things obscure, the presence of things absent, the demonstration of things
concealed. For the mysteries of God, of which description are the things
that pertain to our salvation, cannot be discerned in themselves, and in
their own nature; we only discover them in his word, of whose veracity we
ought to be so firmly persuaded, as to consider all that he speaks as
though it were already performed and accomplished. But how can the mind
elevate itself to receive such a taste of the Divine goodness, without
being all inflamed with mutual love to God? For the plenitude of
happiness, which God has reserved for them who fear him, cannot be truly
known, but it must at the same time excite a vehement affection. And those
whom it has once affected, it draws and elevates towards itself. Therefore
we need not wonder if a perverse and malicious heart never feel this
affection, which conducts us to heaven itself, and introduces us to the
most secret treasures of God and the most sacred recesses of his kingdom,
which must not be profaned by the entrance of an impure heart. For what
the schoolmen(1595) advance concerning the priority of charity to faith
and hope, is a mere reverie of a distempered imagination, since it is
faith alone which first produces charity in us. How much more accurately
Bernard speaks! “I believe,” says he, “that the testimony of conscience,
which Paul calls the rejoicing of the pious, consists in three things. For
it is necessary to believe, first of all, that you cannot have remission
of sins but through the mercy of God; secondly, that you cannot have any
good work, unless he bestow this also; lastly, that you cannot by any
works merit eternal life, unless that also be freely given.”(1596) Just
after he adds, “that these things are not sufficient, but are a beginning
of faith; because in believing that sins can only be forgiven by God, we
ought at the same time to consider that they are forgiven us, till we are
also persuaded, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, that salvation is
laid up for us; because God forgives sins; he also bestows merits; he
likewise confers rewards; it is not possible to remain in this beginning.”
But these and other things must be treated in the proper places; it may
suffice, at present, to ascertain wherein faith itself consists.

XLII. Now, wherever this living faith shall be found, it must necessarily
be attended with the hope of eternal salvation as its inseparable
concomitant, or rather must originate and produce it; since the want of
this hope would prove us to be utterly destitute of faith, however
eloquently and beautifully we might discourse concerning it. For if faith
be, as has been stated, a certain persuasion of the truth of God, that it
can neither lie, nor deceive us, nor be frustrated,—they who have felt
this assurance, likewise expect a period to arrive when God will
accomplish his promises, which, according to their persuasion, cannot but
be true; so that, in short, hope is no other than an expectation of those
things which faith has believed to be truly promised by God. Thus faith
believes the veracity of God, hope expects the manifestation of it in due
time; faith believes him to be our Father, hope expects him always to act
towards us in this character; faith believes that eternal life is given to
us, hope expects it one day to be revealed; faith is the foundation on
which hope rests, hope nourishes and sustains faith. For as no man can
have any expectations from God, but he who has first believed his
promises, so also the imbecility of our faith must be sustained and
cherished by patient hope and expectation, lest it grow weary and faint.
For which reason, Paul rightly places our salvation in hope.(1597) For
hope, while it is silently expecting the Lord, restrains faith, that it
may not be too precipitate; it confirms faith, that it may not waver in
the Divine promises, or begin to doubt of the truth of them; it refreshes
it, that it may not grow weary; it extends it to the farthest goal, that
it may not fail in the midst of the course, or even at the entrance of it.
Finally, hope, by continually renewing and restoring faith, causes it
frequently to persevere with more vigour than hope itself. But in how many
cases the assistance of hope is necessary to the establishment of faith,
will better appear, if we consider how many species of temptations assail
and harass those who have embraced the word of God. First, the Lord, by
deferring the execution of his promises, frequently keeps our minds in
suspense longer than we wish; here it is the office of hope to obey the
injunction of the prophet—“though it tarry, wait for it.”(1598) Sometimes
he not only suffers us to languish, but openly manifests his indignation:
in this case it is much more necessary to have the assistance of hope,
that, according to the language of another prophet, we may “wait upon the
Lord that hideth his face from Jacob.”(1599) Scoffers also arise, as Peter
says, and inquire, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the
fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning
of the creation.”(1600) And the flesh and the world whisper the same
things into our ears. Here faith must be supported by the patience of
hope, and kept fixed on the contemplation of eternity, that it may
consider “a thousand years as one day.”(1601)

XLIII. On account of this union and affinity, the Scripture sometimes uses
the words faith and hope without any distinction. For when Peter says that
we “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be
revealed,”(1602) he attributes to faith, what was more applicable to hope;
and not without reason, since we have already shown, that hope is no other
than the nourishment and strength of faith. Sometimes they are joined
together, as in a passage of the same Epistle—“that your faith and hope
might be in God.”(1603) But Paul, in the Epistle to the Philippians,(1604)
deduces expectation from hope; because in patient hope we suspend our
desires till the arrival of God’s appointed time. All which may be better
understood from the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,(1605)
which I have already cited. In another place, Paul, though with some
impropriety of expression, conveys the very same idea in these words: “We,
through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith;”(1606)
because, having embraced the testimony of the gospel concerning his
gratuitous love, we wait till God openly manifests what is now concealed
under hope. Now, it is easy to see the absurdity of Peter Lombard, in
laying a twofold foundation of hope; the grace of God, and the merit of
works. Hope can have no other object than faith; and the only object of
faith, we have very clearly stated to be the mercy of God; to which both
its eyes, if I may be allowed the expression, ought to be directed. But it
may be proper to hear what kind of a reason he advances. If, says he, you
venture to hope for any thing without merits, it must not be called hope,
but presumption. Who is there that will not justly detest such teachers,
who pronounce a confidence in the veracity of God to be temerity and
presumption? For whereas it is the will of the Lord that we should expect
every thing from his goodness, they assert that it is presumption to
depend and rely upon it. Such a master is worthy of such disciples as he
has found in the schools of wranglers! But, as for us, since we see that
sinners are enjoined by the oracles of God to entertain a hope of
salvation, let us joyfully presume so far on his veracity as to reject all
confidence in our own works, to depend solely on his mercy, and venture to
cherish a hope of happiness. He who said, “According to your faith be it
unto you,”(1607) will not deceive us.

Chapter III. On Repentance.

Though we have already shown, in some respect, how faith possesses Christ,
and how by means of faith we enjoy his benefits, yet the subject would
still be involved in obscurity, unless we were to add a description of the
effects which we experience. The substance of the gospel is, not without
reason, said to be comprised in “repentance and remission of sins.”
Therefore, if these two points be omitted, every controversy concerning
faith will be jejune and incomplete, and consequently of little use. Now,
since both are conferred on us by Christ, and we obtain both by
faith,—that is, newness of life and gratuitous reconciliation,—the regular
method of instruction requires me, in this place, to enter on the
discussion of both. But our immediate transition will be from faith to
repentance; because, when this point is well understood, it will better
appear how man is justified by faith alone, and mere pardon, and yet that
real sanctity of life (so to speak) is not separated from the gratuitous
imputation of righteousness. Now, it ought not to be doubted that
repentance not only immediately follows faith, but is produced by it. For
since pardon, or remission, is offered by the preaching of the gospel, in
order that the sinner, liberated from the tyranny of Satan, from the yoke
of sin, and the miserable servitude of his vices, may remove into the
kingdom of God,—no one can embrace the grace of the gospel, but he must
depart from the errors of his former life, enter into the right way, and
devote all his attention to the exercise of repentance. Those who imagine
that repentance rather precedes faith, than is produced by it, as fruit by
a tree, have never been acquainted with its power, and are induced to
adopt that sentiment by a very insufficient argument.

II. They argue that Jesus Christ and John the Baptist, in their preaching,
first exhort the people to repentance; and afterwards add, that “the
kingdom of heaven is at hand;”(1608) that thus the apostles were commanded
to preach, and that this (according to the account of Luke)(1609) was the
method followed by Paul. But they superstitiously attend to the connection
of the syllables, and disregard the sense and coherence of the words. For
when Christ and John preach in this manner, “Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand,”(1610) do they not derive an argument for repentance
from grace itself, and the promise of salvation? The meaning of their
language, therefore, is just as though they had said, Since the kingdom of
heaven is at hand, therefore repent. For Matthew, having related that John
preached in this manner, informs us, that in him was accomplished the
prediction of Isaiah concerning “the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” But,
in the prophet, that voice is commanded to begin with consolation and glad
tidings.(1611) Yet, when we speak of faith as the origin of repentance, we
dream not of any space of time which it employs in producing it; but we
intend to signify, that a man cannot truly devote himself to repentance,
unless he knows himself to be of God. Now, no man is truly persuaded that
he is of God, except he has previously received his grace. But these
things will be more clearly discussed as we proceed. This circumstance,
perhaps, has deceived them—that many are overcome or led to obedience by
terrors of conscience, before they have imbibed a knowledge of grace, or
have even tasted it. And this is the initial fear, which some number among
the graces, because they perceive it to be nearly connected with true and
righteous obedience. But we are not inquiring, at present, in how many
ways Christ draws us to himself, or prepares us for the practice of piety:
only I assert, that no rectitude can be found but where that Spirit
reigns, whom he has received in order to communicate him to his members.
In the next place, according to this passage in the Psalms, “There is
forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,”(1612) no man will ever
reverence God, but he who confides in his being propitious to him: no man
will cheerfully devote himself to the observance of his law, but he who is
persuaded that his services are pleasing to him: and this indulgence in
pardoning us, and bearing with our faults, is an evidence of his paternal
favour. The same also appears from this exhortation of Hosea, “Come, and
let us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he
hath smitten, and he will bind us up;”(1613) because the hope of pardon is
added as a stimulus, to prevent them from being stupefied in their sins.
But there is not the least appearance of reason in the notion of those
who, in order to begin with repentance, prescribe to their young converts
certain days, during which they must exercise themselves in repentance;
after the expiration of which, they admit them to the communion of
evangelical grace. I speak of many of the Anabaptists, especially of those
who wonderfully delight in being accounted spiritual; and their
companions, the Jesuits, and other such worthless men. Such are the
effects produced by that spirit of fanaticism, that it terminates
repentance within the limits of a few short days, which a Christian ought
to extend throughout his whole life.

III. But concerning repentance, some learned men, in times very remote
from the present, desiring to express themselves with simplicity and
sincerity according to the rule of the Scripture, have said that it
consists of two parts—mortification and vivification. Mortification they
explain to be the sorrow of the mind, and the terror experienced from a
knowledge of sin and a sense of the Divine judgments. For when any one has
been brought to a true knowledge of sin, he then begins truly to hate and
abhor it; then he is heartily displeased with himself, confesses himself
to be miserable and lost, and wishes that he were another man. Moreover,
when he is affected with some sense of the Divine judgment, (for the one
immediately follows the other,) then, indeed, he is stricken with
consternation, he trembles with humility and dejection, he feels a
despondency of mind, he falls into despair. This is the first part of
repentance, which they have generally styled contrition. Vivification they
explain to be the consolation which is produced by faith; when a man,
after having been humbled with a consciousness of sin, and stricken with
the fear of God, afterwards contemplates the goodness of God, and the
mercy, grace, and salvation bestowed through Christ, rises from his
depression, feels himself re‐invigorated, recovers his courage, and as it
were returns from death to life. These terms, provided they be rightly
understood, are sufficiently adapted to express the nature of repentance;
but when they explain vivification of that joy which the mind experiences
after its perturbations and fears are allayed, I cannot coincide with
them; since it should rather signify an ardent desire and endeavour to
live a holy and pious life, as though it were said, that a man dies to
himself, that he may begin to live to God.

IV. Others, perceiving this word to have various acceptations in
Scripture, have laid down two kinds of repentance; and, to distinguish
them by some character, have called one Legal; in which the sinner,
wounded by the envenomed dart of sin, and harassed by the fear of Divine
wrath, is involved in deep distress, without the power of extricating
himself: the other they style Evangelical; in which the sinner is
grievously afflicted in himself, but rises above his distress, and
embraces Christ as the medicine for his wound, the consolation of his
terrors, and his refuge from all misery. Of legal repentance, they
consider Cain, Saul, and Judas, as examples;(1614) the scriptural account
of whose repentance gives us to understand, that from a knowledge of the
greatness of their sins they dreaded the Divine wrath, but that
considering God only as an avenger and a judge, they perished under that
apprehension. Their repentance, therefore, was only, as it were, the
antechamber of hell, which having already entered in this life, they began
to suffer punishment from the manifestation of the wrath of the Divine
Majesty. Evangelical repentance we discover in all who have been
distressed by a sense of sin in themselves, but have been raised from
their depression, and reinvigorated by a confidence in the Divine mercy,
and converted to the Lord. Hezekiah was terrified when he received the
message of death;(1615) but he wept and prayed, and, contemplating the
goodness of God, recovered his former confidence. The Ninevites were
confounded by the terrible denunciation of destruction;(1616) but they
covered themselves with sackcloth and ashes, and prayed, in hope that the
Lord might be appeased, and the fury of his wrath averted. David confessed
that he had committed a great sin in numbering the people; but added, “O
Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant.”(1617) He acknowledged his
crime of adultery at the rebuke of Nathan, and prostrated himself before
the Lord; but at the same time cherished an expectation of pardon.(1618)
Such was the repentance of those who felt compunction of heart at the
preaching of Peter, but, confiding in the goodness of God, exclaimed, “Men
and brethren, what shall we do?”(1619) Such also was that of Peter
himself, who wept bitterly, but never lost his hope.

V. Though all these observations are true, yet the term repentance, as far
as I can ascertain from the Scriptures, must have a different acceptation.
For to include faith in repentance, is repugnant to what Paul says in the
Acts—that he testified “both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks,
repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;”(1620)
where he mentions faith and repentance, as two things totally distinct.
What then? Can true repentance exist without faith? Not at all. But though
they cannot be separated, yet they ought to be distinguished. As faith
exists not without hope, and yet there is a difference between them, so
repentance and faith, although they are perpetually and indissolubly
united, require to be connected rather than confounded. I am well aware,
that under the term _repentance_ is comprehended a complete conversion to
God, of which faith is one of the principal branches; but in what sense,
will best appear from an explication of its nature and properties. The
Hebrew word for repentance denotes conversion or return. The Greek word
signifies change of mind and intention. Repentance itself corresponds very
well with both etymologies, for it comprehends these two things—that,
forsaking ourselves, we should turn to God, and laying aside our old mind,
should assume a new one. Wherefore I conceive it may be justly defined to
be “_a true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere and
serious fear of God, and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and
of the old man, and in the vivification of the Spirit_.” In this sense we
must understand all the addresses, in which either the prophets in ancient
days, or the apostles in a succeeding age, exhorted their contemporaries
to repentance. For the point to which they endeavoured to bring them was
this—that being confounded by their sins, and penetrated with a fear of
the Divine judgment, they might prostrate themselves in humility before
him against whom they had offended, and with true penitence return into
his right way. Therefore these expressions, “_to repent_”(1621) and “_to
return to the Lord_,”(1622) are promiscuously used by them in the same
signification. Hence also the sacred history expresses repentance by
_seeking after_ and _following God_, when men who have disregarded him,
and indulged their criminal propensities, begin to obey his word, and are
ready to follow whithersoever he calls them. And John and Paul have spoken
of “bringing forth fruits meet for repentance,” to signify a life which,
in every action, will discover and testify such a repentance.

VI. But before we proceed any further, it will be useful to amplify and
explain the definition we have given; in which there are three points to
be particularly considered. In the first place, when we call repentance “a
conversion of the life to God,” we require a transformation, not only in
the external actions, but in the soul itself; which, after having put off
its old nature, should produce the fruits of actions corresponding to its
renovation. The prophet, intending to express this idea, commands those
whom he calls to repentance, to make themselves a new heart.(1623)
Wherefore Moses, when about to show how the Israelites might repent and be
rightly converted to the Lord, frequently teaches them that it must be
done with all their heart, and with all their soul; and by speaking of the
circumcision of the heart, he enters into the inmost affections of the
mind. This mode of expression we find often repeated by the prophets; but
there is no passage from which we may obtain clearer ideas of the true
nature of repentance, than from the language of God in the fourth chapter
of Jeremiah: “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto
me. Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise
yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.”(1624)
Observe how he denounces that they shall labour in vain in the pursuit of
righteousness, unless impiety be previously eradicated from the bottom of
their hearts. And in order to make a deeper impression upon them, he
apprizes them that they have to do with God, with whom subterfuges are of
no avail, because he abhors all duplicity of heart. For this reason,
Isaiah ridicules the preposterous endeavours of hypocrites, who did indeed
strenuously attempt an external repentance by the observance of
ceremonies, but at the same time were not concerned “to loose the bands of
wickedness,”(1625) with which they oppressed the poor. In that passage he
also beautifully shows, in what duties unfeigned repentance properly
consists.

VII. In the second place, we represented repentance as proceeding from a
serious fear of God. For before the mind of a sinner can be inclined to
repentance, it must be excited by a knowledge of the Divine judgment. But
when this thought has once been deeply impressed, that God will one day
ascend his tribunal to exact an account of all words and actions, it will
not permit the miserable man to take any interval of rest, or to enjoy
even a momentary respite, but perpetually stimulates him to adopt a new
course of life, that he may be able to appear with security at that
judgment. Wherefore the Scripture, when it exhorts to repentance,
frequently introduces a mention of the judgment; as in Jeremiah; “Lest my
fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of
the evil of your doings:”(1626) in the address of Paul to the Athenians;
“The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men
every where to repent; because he hath appointed a day in which he will
judge the world in righteousness:”(1627) and in many other places.
Sometimes, by the punishments already inflicted, it declares that God is a
judge; in order that sinners may consider with themselves that worse
calamities await them, unless they speedily repent. We have an example of
this in the twenty‐ninth chapter of Deuteronomy. But since conversion
commences with a dread and hatred of sin, therefore the apostle makes
godly sorrow the cause of repentance.(1628) He calls it godly sorrow when
we not only dread punishment, but hate and abhor sin itself, from a
knowledge that it is displeasing to God. Nor ought this to be thought
strange; for, unless we felt sharp compunction, our carnal sluggishness
could never be corrected, and even these distresses of mind would not be
sufficient to arouse it from its stupidity and indolence, if God, by the
infliction of his chastisements, did not make a deeper impression. Beside
this, there is a rebellious obstinacy, which requires violent blows, as it
were, to overcome it. The severity, therefore, which God uses in his
threatenings, is extorted from him by the depravity of our minds; since it
would be in vain for him to address kind and alluring invitations to those
who are asleep. I forbear to recite the testimonies with which the
Scripture abounds. The fear of God is called the beginning of repentance
also for another reason; because though a man’s life were perfect in every
virtue, if it be not devoted to the worship of God, it may indeed be
commended by the world, but in heaven it will be only an abomination;
since the principal branch of righteousness consists in rendering to God
the honour due to him, of which he is impiously defrauded, when it is not
our end and aim to submit ourselves to his government.

VIII. It remains for us, in the third place, to explain our position, that
repentance consists of two parts—the mortification of the flesh and the
vivification of the spirit. This is clearly expressed by the prophets,
although in a simple and homely manner, according to the capacity of a
carnal people, when they say, “Depart from evil, and do good.”(1629)
Again: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from
before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment;
relieve the oppressed,” &c.(1630) For when they call men from the paths of
wickedness, they require the total destruction of the flesh, which is full
of wickedness and perverseness. It is a thing truly difficult and arduous
to put off ourselves, and to depart from the native bias of our minds. Nor
must the flesh be considered as entirely dead, unless all that we have of
ourselves be destroyed. But since the universal disposition of the flesh
is settled “enmity against God,”(1631) the first step to an obedience of
the law is this renunciation of our own nature. They afterwards designate
the renovation by its fruits—righteousness, judgment, and mercy. For a
punctual performance of these external duties would not be sufficient,
unless the mind and heart had previously acquired a disposition of
righteousness, judgment, and mercy. This takes place when the Spirit of
God has tinctured our souls with his holiness, and given them such new
thoughts and affections, that they may be justly considered as new, [or
altogether different from what they were before.] And certainly, as we
have a natural aversion to God, we shall never aim at that which is right,
without a previous renunciation of ourselves. Therefore we are so
frequently commanded to put off the old man, to renounce the world and the
flesh, to forsake our lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of our mind.
Besides, the very word mortification reminds us how difficult it is to
forget our former nature; for it implies that we cannot be formed to the
fear of God, and learn the rudiments of piety, without being violently
slain and annihilated by the sword of the Spirit. As though God had
pronounced that, in order to our being numbered among his children, there
is a necessity for the destruction of our common nature.

IX. Both these branches of repentance are effects of our participation of
Christ. For if we truly partake of his death, our old man is crucified by
its power, and the body of sin expires, so that the corruption of our
former nature loses all its vigour.(1632) If we are partakers of his
resurrection, we are raised by it to a newness of life, which corresponds
with the righteousness of God. In one word I apprehend repentance to be
regeneration, the end of which is the restoration of the Divine image
within us; which was defaced, and almost obliterated, by the transgression
of Adam. Thus the apostle teaches us, when he says, “But we all, with open
face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the
same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”(1633)
Again: “Be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind; and put on the new man,
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”(1634)
Again, in another place: “And ye have put on the new man, which is renewed
in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”(1635) Wherefore, in
this regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the
righteousness of God, from which we fell in Adam; in which manner the Lord
is pleased completely to restore all those whom he adopts to the
inheritance of life. And this restoration is not accomplished in a single
moment, or day, or year; but by continual, and sometimes even tardy
advances, the Lord destroys the carnal corruptions of his chosen, purines
them from all pollution, and consecrates them as temples to himself;
renewing all their senses to real purity, that they may employ their whole
life in the exercise of repentance, and know that this warfare will be
terminated only by death. And so much the greater is the wickedness of
that impure and quarrelsome apostate Staphylus, who idly pretends that I
confound the state of the present life with the glory of heaven, when I
explain the image of God, according to Paul, to be righteousness and true
holiness. As if, indeed, when any thing is to be defined, we are not to
inquire after the completeness and perfection of it. It is not denied that
there is room for further advances; but I assert, that as far as any man
approaches to a resemblance of God, so far the image of God is displayed
in him. That believers may attain to this, God assigns them the race of
repentance to run during their whole life.

X. Thus, therefore, the children of God are liberated by regeneration from
the servitude of sin; not that they have already obtained the full
possession of liberty, and experience no more trouble from the flesh, but
there remains in them a perpetual cause of contention to exercise them;
and not only to exercise them, but also to make them better acquainted
with their own infirmity. And on this subject all sound writers are
agreed—that there still remains in a regenerate man a fountain of evil,
continually producing irregular desires, which allure and stimulate him to
the commission of sin. They acknowledge, also, that saints are still so
afflicted with the disease of concupiscence, that they cannot prevent
their being frequently stimulated and incited either to lust, or to
avarice, or to ambition, or to other vices. There is no need of a
laborious investigation, to learn what were the sentiments of the fathers
on this subject: it will be sufficient to consult Augustine alone, who
with great diligence and fidelity has collected the opinions of them all.
From him, then, the reader may receive all the certainty he can desire
concerning the sense of antiquity. Between him and us, this difference may
be discovered—that while he concedes that believers, as long as they
inhabit a mortal body, are so bound by concupiscence that they cannot but
feel irregular desires, yet he ventures not to call this disease by the
name of _sin_, but, content with designating it by the appellation of
infirmity, teaches that it only becomes sin in cases where either action
or consent is added to the conception or apprehension of the mind, that
is, where the will yields to the first impulse of appetite. But we, on the
contrary, deem it to be sin, whenever a man feels any evil desires
contrary to the Divine law; and we also assert the depravity itself to be
sin, which produces these desires in our minds. We maintain, therefore,
that sin always exists in the saints, till they are divested of the mortal
body; because their flesh is the residence of that depravity of
concupiscence, which is repugnant to all rectitude. Nevertheless, he has
not always refrained from using the word sin in this sense; as when he
says, “Paul gives the appellation of sin to this, from which all sins
proceed, that is, to carnal concupiscence. This, as it respects the
saints, loses its kingdom on earth, and has no existence in heaven.” In
these words he acknowledges that believers are guilty of sin, inasmuch as
they are the subjects of carnal concupiscence.

XI. But when God is said “to cleanse his church”(1636) from all sin, to
promise the grace of deliverance in baptism, and to fulfil it in his
elect,—we refer these phrases rather to the guilt of sin, than to the
existence of sin. In the regeneration of his children, God does indeed
destroy the kingdom of sin in them, (for the Spirit supplies them with
strength, which renders them victorious in the conflict;) but though it
ceases to reign, it continues to dwell in them. Wherefore we say, that
“the old man is crucified,”(1637) that the law of sin is abolished in the
children of God, yet so that some relics remain; not to predominate over
them, but to humble them with a consciousness of their infirmity. We
grant, indeed, that they are not imputed, any more than if they did not
exist; but we likewise contend that it is owing to the mercy of God that
the saints are delivered from this guilt, who would otherwise be justly
accounted sinners and guilty before him. Nor will it be difficult for us
to confirm this opinion, since there are clear testimonies of Scripture to
support it. What can we desire more explicit than the declaration of Paul
to the Romans?(1638) In the first place, that he there speaks in the
character of a regenerate man, we have already shown; and Augustine has
evinced the same by the strongest arguments. I say nothing of his using
the words evil and sin. However those who wish to oppose us may cavil at
those words, yet who can deny that a resistance to the Divine law is evil?
who can deny that an opposition to righteousness is sin? finally, who will
not admit that there is guilt wherever there is spiritual misery? But all
these things are affirmed by Paul respecting this disease. Besides, we
have a certain demonstration from the law, by which this whole question
may be briefly decided. For we are commanded to love God with all our
heart, with all our mind, and with all our strength. Since all the powers
of our soul ought to be thus occupied by the love of God, it is evident
that the precept is not fulfilled by those who receive into their hearts
the least desire, or admit into their minds any thought, which may draw
them aside from the love of God into vanity. What then? Are not these
properties of the soul,—to be affected with sudden emotions, to apprehend
in the sensory, and to form conceptions in the mind? When these,
therefore, open a way for the admission of vain and corrupt thoughts, do
they not show that they are so far destitute of the love of God? Whoever,
therefore, refuses to acknowledge that all the inordinate desires of the
flesh are sins, and that that malady of concupiscence, which they call an
incentive to sin, is the source of sin, must necessarily deny the
transgression of the law to be sin.

XII. If it be thought absurd, that all the natural appetites of man should
be thus universally condemned, since they were implanted by God, the
author of nature,—we reply, that we by no means condemn those desires,
which God implanted so deeply in the nature of man at his first creation
that they cannot be eradicated from it without destroying humanity itself,
but only those insolent and lawless appetites which resist the commands of
God. But now, since, through the depravity of nature, all its powers are
so vitiated and corrupted, that disorder and intemperance are visible in
all our actions; because the appetites are inseparable from such excesses,
therefore we maintain that they are corrupt. Or, if it be wished to have
the substance of our opinion in fewer words, we say, that all the desires
of men are evil; and we consider them to be sinful, not as they are
natural, but because they are inordinate; and we affirm they are
inordinate, because nothing pure or immaculate can proceed from a
corrupted and polluted nature. Nor does Augustine deviate from this
doctrine so much as he appears to do. When he is too much afraid of the
odium with which the Pelagians endeavoured to overwhelm him, he sometimes
refrains from using the word _sin_: yet when he says, “that the law of sin
remains in the saints, and that only the guilt is abolished,” he
sufficiently indicates that he is not averse to our opinion.

XIII. We will adduce some other passages, from which his sentiments will
more fully appear. In his second book against Julian: “This law of sin is
both abolished in the spiritual regeneration, and continues in the mortal
flesh; abolished, since the guilt is removed in the sacrament, by which
believers are regenerated; but continues, because it produces those
desires against which also believers contend.” Again: “Therefore the law
of sin, which was in the members even of so great an apostle, is abolished
in baptism, but not finally destroyed.” Again: “The law of sin, the
remaining guilt of which is removed in baptism, Ambrose has called
_iniquity_; because it is iniquitous for the flesh to lust against the
spirit.” Again: “Sin is dead in that guilt in which it held us; and,
although dead, it will rebel till it is cured by the perfection of
burial.” In the fifth book, he is still more explicit: “As blindness of
heart is both a sin, which consists in a man’s not believing in God; and a
punishment for sin, by which a proud heart is deservedly punished; and
also a cause of sin, when any is committed through the error of a blind
heart; so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit
lusteth, is both a sin, because it is a disobedience against the
government of the mind; and a punishment for sin, because it is inflicted
for the demerits of the disobedient; and also a cause of sin, consenting
by defection, or produced from contagion.” Here he styles it _sin_,
without any ambiguity; because, having overthrown error and confirmed the
truth, he is not so much afraid of calumnies; as also in the forty‐first
homily on John, where he undoubtedly speaks the real sentiments of his
mind: “If in the flesh you serve the law of sin, do what the apostle
himself says—’Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey
it in the lusts thereof.’(1639) He says not, let it not exist; but, let it
not reign. As long as you live, sin must necessarily exist in your
members; let it at least be divested of its kingdom, so that its commands
may not be fulfilled.” Those who contend that concupiscence is not sin,
commonly object this passage of James—“When lust hath conceived, it
bringeth forth sin.”(1640) But this objection is easily repelled; for,
unless we understand him there to speak of evil works exclusively, or of
actual sins, even an evil volition cannot be accounted sin. But from his
calling flagitious and criminal actions the offspring of lust, and
attributing to them the name of sin, it does not necessarily follow that
concupiscence is not an evil thing, and deserving of condemnation in the
sight of God.

XIV. Some Anabaptists, in the present age, imagine I know not what frantic
intemperance, instead of spiritual regeneration—that the children of God,
being restored to a state of innocence, are no longer obliged to be
solicitous to restrain the licentiousness of the flesh, but that they
ought to follow the leadings of the Spirit, under whose direction it is
impossible ever to err. It would be incredible that the mind of man should
fall into such madness, did they not publicly and haughtily disseminate
this opinion. It is indeed truly prodigious; but it is just and
reasonable, that those who have persuaded themselves to pervert the truth
of God into a falsehood, should suffer such punishment for their
sacrilegious presumption. Must all distinction, then, of honour and
turpitude, justice and injustice, good and evil, virtue and vice, be
annihilated? This difference, they say, proceeds from the malediction of
the old Adam, from which we are delivered by Christ. Then there will be no
difference now between chastity and fornication, sincerity and knavery,
truth and falsehood, equity and rapine. Dismiss (they say) all vain fear;
the Spirit will command you nothing that is evil, provided you securely
and intrepidly resign yourself to his direction. Who is not astonished at
these monstrous notions? Yet this is a popular philosophy among those,
who, blinded by the violence of their appetites, have discarded common
sense. But what kind of a Christ, and what kind of a Spirit, have they
fabricated for us? For we acknowledge one Christ and his Spirit alone;
whom the prophets have celebrated, whom the gospel proclaims as revealed,
but of whom it gives us no such account as this. That Spirit is not the
patron of murder, fornication, drunkenness, pride, contention, avarice, or
fraud; but the author of love, chastity, sobriety, modesty, peace,
moderation, and truth. He is not a Spirit of fanaticism, rushing
precipitately, without any consideration, through right and wrong; but is
full of wisdom and understanding, rightly to discern between justice and
injustice. He never instigates to dissolute and unrestrained
licentiousness; but, discriminating between what is lawful and what is
unlawful, inculcates temperance and moderation. But why should we spend
any more labour in refuting this monstrous frenzy? To Christians the
Spirit of the Lord is not a turbulent phantom, which they have either
spawned themselves in a dream, or received from the invention of others;
but they religiously seek the knowledge of him in the Scriptures, where
these two things are delivered concerning him—first, that he is given to
us in order to our sanctification, to purify us from all our pollutions,
and lead us to obey the Divine righteousness; which obedience cannot exist
without the subjugation of the appetites, to which these men would allow
an unlimited license: in the next place, that we are so purified by his
sanctification, that we are nevertheless still encompassed with numerous
vices and great infirmity, as long as we are burdened with the body.
Wherefore, being at a great distance from perfection, it behoves us to
make continual advances; and being entangled in vices, we have need to
strive against them every day. Hence, also, it follows that we ought to
shake off all slothful security, and exert the most vigilant attention,
lest, without caution, we should be surprised and overcome by the snares
of our flesh; unless we are well assured that we have made a greater
progress than the apostle; who, nevertheless, was buffeted by the
“messenger of Satan,”(1641) that his strength might be “made perfect in
weakness;”(1642) and who faithfully represented the conflict between the
flesh and the Spirit, which he experienced in his own person.

XV. When the apostle, in a description of repentance, enumerates seven
things, which are either causes producing it, or effects proceeding from
it, or members and parts of it, he does it for a very good reason. These
things are, carefulness, excuse, indignation, fear, vehement desire, zeal,
revenge.(1643) Nor ought it to be thought strange that I venture not to
determine whether they should be considered as causes or effects; for
arguments may be adduced in support of both. They may also be styled
affections connected with repentance; but as we may discover the meaning
of Paul without discussing these questions, we shall be content with a
simple exposition of them. He says, then, that godly sorrow produces
_solicitude_. For a person who is affected with a serious sense of
displeasure because he has sinned against his God, is at the same time
stimulated to diligence and attention, that he may completely extricate
himself from the snares of the devil, and be more cautious of his
insidious attacks, that he may not in future disobey the government of the
Spirit, or be overcome with a careless security. The next thing is _self‐
excuse_, which in this place signifies not a defence by which a sinner
tries to escape the judgment of God, either by denying his transgressions
or extenuating his guilt, but a kind of excuse, consisting rather in
deprecation of punishment than in confidence of his cause. Just as
children, who are not absolutely lost to all sense of duty, while they
acknowledge and confess their faults, at the same time deprecate
punishment, and, in order to succeed, testify by every possible method
that they have not cast off that reverence which is due to their parents;
in a word, they excuse themselves in such a manner, not to prove
themselves righteous and innocent, but only to obtain pardon. This is
followed by _indignation_, in which the sinner laments within himself,
expostulates with himself, and is angry with himself, while he recollects
his perverseness and ingratitude to God. The word _fear_ denotes that
trepidation with which our minds are penetrated, whenever we reflect upon
our demerits, and on the terrible severity of the Divine wrath against
sinners. For we cannot but be agitated with an amazing inquietude, which
teaches us humility, and renders us more cautious for the future. Now, if
the solicitude before mentioned be the offspring of fear, we see the
connection and coherence between them. He appears to me to have used the
word _desire_ to denote diligence in duty and alacrity of obedience, to
which the knowledge of our faults ought to be a most powerful stimulus.
Similar to this is the meaning of _zeal_, which he immediately subjoins;
for it signifies the ardour with which we are inflamed, when we are roused
with such thoughts as these: “What have I done? Whither had I precipitated
myself, if I had not been succoured by the mercy of God?” The last thing
is _revenge_, or punishment; for the greater our severity is towards
ourselves, and the stricter inquisition we make concerning our sins, so
much the stronger hope ought we to entertain that God will be propitious
and merciful. And, indeed, it is impossible but that a soul, impressed
with a dread of the Divine judgment, must inflict some punishment on
itself. Truly pious persons experience what punishments are contained in
shame, confusion, lamentation, displeasure with themselves, and the other
affections which arise from a serious acknowledgment of their
transgressions. But let us remember that some limit must be observed, that
we may not be overwhelmed in sorrow; for to nothing are terrified
consciences more liable than to fall into despair. And with this artifice,
also, whomsoever Satan perceives to be dejected by a fear of God, he
plunges them further and further into the deep gulf of sorrow, that they
may never arise again. That fear, indeed, cannot be excessive, which
terminates in humility, and departs not from the hope of pardon.
Nevertheless, the sinner should always be on his guard, according to the
direction of the apostle,(1644)lest while he excites his heart to be
displeased with himself, he be _wearied_ with excessive dread, and _faint
in his mind_; for this would drive us away from God, who calls us to
himself by repentance. On this subject, Bernard also gives a very useful
admonition: “Sorrow for sin is necessary, if it be not perpetual. I advise
you sometimes to quit the anxious and painful recollection of your own
ways, and to arise to an agreeable and serene remembrance of the Divine
blessings. Let us mingle honey with wormwood, that its salutary bitterness
may restore our health, when it shall be drunk tempered with a mixture of
sweetness; and if you reflect on your own meanness, reflect also on the
goodness of the Lord.”

XVI. Now, it may also be understood what are the fruits of repentance.
They are, the duties of piety towards God, and of charity towards men,
with sanctity and purity in our whole life. In a word, the more diligently
any one examines his life by the rule of the Divine law, so much the more
certain evidences he discovers of his repentance. The Spirit, therefore,
in frequently exhorting us to repentance, calls our attention, sometimes
to all the precepts of the law, sometimes to the duties of the second
table; though in other places, after having condemned impurity in the very
fountain of the heart, he proceeds to those external testimonies which
evidence a sincere repentance; a view of which I will soon exhibit to the
reader, in a description of the Christian life. I shall not collect
testimonies from the prophets, in which they partly ridicule the follies
of those who attempt to appease God by ceremonies, and demonstrate them to
be mere mockeries; and partly inculcate, that external integrity of life
is not the principal branch of repentance, because God looks at the heart.
He that is but ordinarily acquainted with the Scripture, will discover of
himself, without being informed by any one, that in our concerns with God,
we advance not a single step unless we begin with the internal affection
of the heart. And this passage of Joel will afford us no small assistance
in the interpretation of others: “Rend your heart, and not your
garments.”(1645) Both these ideas are briefly expressed in these words of
James—“Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double
minded;”(1646) where there is indeed an addition made to the first clause;
but the fountain, or original, is next discovered, showing the necessity
of cleansing the secret pollution, that an altar may be erected to God
even in the heart. There are likewise some external exercises which we
use, in private, as remedies either to humble ourselves, or to subdue our
carnality; and in public, to testify our repentance. They proceed from the
revenge mentioned by Paul;(1647) for it is natural to an afflicted mind to
continue in a squalid condition, groaning and weeping, to avoid every kind
of splendour and pomp, and to forsake all pleasures. He who experiences
the great evil of the rebellion of the flesh, seeks every remedy to
restrain it. He who properly considers what a grievous thing it is to have
offended the justice of God, can enjoy no repose till he has glorified God
by his humility. Such exercises are frequently mentioned by the old
writers, when they speak of the fruits of repentance. And though they by
no means make repentance wholly to consist in them, yet the reader will
pardon me if I deliver my opinion, that they appear to me to insist upon
them more than they ought. And I hope every one, on a sober examination,
will agree with me, that they have gone beyond all due bounds in two
respects. For when they so strongly urged and so extravagantly recommended
that corporeal discipline, the consequence was indeed that the common
people adopted it with great ardour; but they also obscured that which
ought to be esteemed of infinitely greater importance. Secondly, in the
infliction of castigations, they used rather more rigour than was
consistent with ecclesiastical gentleness. But we shall have to treat of
this in another place.

XVII. But as some persons, when they find weeping, fasting, and ashes
mentioned, not only in many other passages of Scripture, but particularly
in Joel,(1648) consider fasting and weeping as the principal part of
repentance, their mistake requires to be rectified. What is there said of
the conversion of the whole heart to the Lord, and of rending not the
garments, but the heart, properly belongs to repentance; but weeping and
fasting are not added as perpetual or necessary effects of it, but as
circumstances belonging to a particular case. Having prophesied that a
most grievous destruction was impending over the Jews, he persuades them
to prevent the Divine wrath, not only by repentance, but also by
exhibiting external demonstrations of sorrow. For as it was customary, in
ancient times, for an accused person to present himself in a suppliant
posture, with a long beard, dishevelled hair, and mourning apparel, in
order to conciliate the compassion of the judge, so it became those who
stood as criminals before the tribunal of God, to deprecate his severity
in a condition calculated to excite commiseration. Though sackcloth and
ashes were perhaps more suitable to those times, yet it is evident that
the practice of weeping and fasting would be very seasonable among us,
whenever the Lord appears to threaten us with any affliction or calamity.
For when he causes danger to appear, he, as it were, denounces that he is
prepared and armed for the exercise of vengeance. The prophet, therefore,
was right in exhorting his countrymen to weeping and fasting; that is, to
the sadness of persons under accusation, into whose offences he had just
before said that an examination was instituted. Neither would the pastors
of the church act improperly in the present age, if, when they perceived
calamity impending over the heads of their people, they called them to
immediate weeping and fasting; provided they always insisted with the
greatest fervour and diligence on the principal point, which is, that they
must rend their hearts, and not their garments. It is certain, that
fasting is not always the concomitant of repentance, but is appointed for
times of peculiar calamity; wherefore Christ connects it with mourning,
when he frees the apostles from any obligation to it, till they should be
affected with grief at the loss of his presence.(1649) I speak of solemn
fasting. For the life of the pious ought at all times to be regulated by
frugality and sobriety, that through its whole progress it may appear to
be a kind of perpetual fast. But as the whole of this subject must be
discussed again, when we come to treat of Ecclesiastical Discipline, I
touch the more slightly upon it at present.

XVIII. I will again remark, however, that when the word _repentance_ is
transferred to this external profession, it is improperly changed from the
genuine signification which I have stated. For this external profession is
not so much a conversion to God, as a confession of sin, with a
deprecation of punishment and guilt. Thus to “repent in sackcloth and
ashes,”(1650) is only a declaration of our displeasure against ourselves,
when God is angry with us on account of our grievous offences. And this is
a public species of confession, by which condemning ourselves before
angels and men, we prevent the judgment of God. For Paul rebukes the
sluggishness of those who indulge their sins, saying, “If we would judge
ourselves, we should not be judged.”(1651) It is not necessary, in all
cases, publicly to make men witnesses of our repentance; but a private
confession to God is a branch of true penitence which cannot be omitted.
For nothing is more unreasonable than that God should pardon sins, in
which we encourage ourselves, and which, lest he should bring them to
light, we conceal under the garb of hypocrisy. And it is not only
necessary to confess the sins which we commit from day to day; more
grievous falls ought to lead us further, and to recall to our remembrance
those which appear to have been long buried in oblivion. We learn this
from the example of David;(1652) for, being ashamed of a recent and
flagitious crime, he examines himself back to the time of his conception,
and acknowledges that even then he was corrupted and contaminated with
carnal impurity; and this not to extenuate his guilt, as many conceal
themselves in a multitude, and endeavour to escape with impunity by
implicating others with themselves. Very different was the conduct of
David, who ingenuously aggravated his guilt, by confessing that he was
corrupted from his earliest infancy, and had never ceased to accumulate
crimes upon crimes. In another place, also, he enters on such an
examination of his past life, that he implores the Divine mercy to pardon
the sins of his youth.(1653) And certainly we shall never give proof that
we have shaken off our lethargy, till, groaning under the burden, and
bewailing our misery, we pray to God for relief. It is further to be
remarked, that the repentance which we are commanded constantly to
practise, differs from that which arouses, as it were, from death those
who have either fallen into some great enormity, or abandoned themselves
to a course of sin with unrestrained license, or by any rebellion shaken
off the Divine yoke. For when the Scripture exhorts to repentance, it
frequently signifies a kind of transition and resurrection from death to
life; and when it states that the people repented, it means that they
departed from idolatry and other gross enormities; in which sense Paul
declares his grief for sinners, who “have not repented of their
uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness.”(1654) This difference
should be carefully observed, lest, when we hear that few are called to
repentance, we fall into a supine security, as though we had no more to do
with the mortification of the flesh, from which the depraved appetites
that perpetually disturb us, and the vices that often arise in us, will
never permit us to relax. The special repentance, therefore, which is only
required of some whom the devil has seduced from the fear of God, and
entangled in his fatal snares, supersedes not that ordinary repentance,
which the corruption of nature obliges us to practise during the whole
course of our lives.

XIX. Now, if it be true, as it certainly is, that the whole substance of
the gospel is comprised in these two points, repentance and remission of
sins,—do not we perceive that the Lord freely justifies his children, that
he may also restore them to true righteousness by the sanctification of
his Spirit? John, the “messenger sent before the face” of Christ to
“prepare his way before him,”(1655) preached, “Repent ye, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand.”(1656) By calling men to repentance, he taught them
to acknowledge themselves to be sinners, and every thing belonging to them
to be condemned before God, that they might earnestly desire and pray for
a mortification of the flesh, and new regeneration in the Spirit. By
announcing the kingdom of God, he called them to exercise faith; for by
“the kingdom of God,” the approach of which he proclaimed, he intended
remission of sins, salvation, life, and in general all the benefits that
we obtain in Christ. Wherefore, in the other evangelists, it is said, that
“John came, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins.”(1657) What was intended by this, but that, oppressed and wearied
with the burden of sins, men should turn themselves to the Lord, and
entertain a hope of remission and salvation? Thus, also, Christ commenced
his public ministrations. “The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and
believe the gospel.”(1658) First, he declares that the treasures of mercy
are opened in himself; then he requires repentance; and lastly, a reliance
on the Divine promises. Therefore, when he would give a brief summary of
the whole gospel, he said, that “it behoved him to suffer, and to rise
from the dead; and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name.”(1659) The apostles also, after his resurrection,
preached that he was exalted by God, “to give repentance to Israel and
remission of sins.”(1660) Repentance is preached in the name of Christ,
when men are informed, by the doctrine of the gospel, that all their
thoughts, their affections, and their pursuits, are corrupt and vicious;
and that therefore it is necessary for them to be born again, if they wish
to enter the kingdom of God. Remission of sins is preached, when men are
taught that Christ is made unto them “wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption;”(1661) in whose name they are gratuitously
accounted righteous and innocent in the sight of God. Both these blessings
of grace, as we have already shown, are apprehended by faith; yet since
the goodness of God in the remission of sins is the peculiar object of
faith, it was necessary that it should be carefully distinguished from
repentance.

XX. Now, as a hatred of sin, which is the commencement of repentance, is
our first introduction to the knowledge of Christ, who reveals himself to
none but miserable and distressed sinners, who mourn, and labour, and are
heavy laden; who hunger and thirst, and are pining away with grief and
misery;(1662) so it is necessary for us, if we desire to abide in Christ,
to strive for this repentance, to devote our whole lives to it, and to
pursue it to the last. For he “came to call sinners,” but it was to call
them “to repentance.”(1663) He was “sent to bless” the unworthy; but it
was “in turning away every one from his iniquities.”(1664) The Scripture
is full of such expressions. Wherefore, when God offers remission of sins,
he generally requires repentance on the part of the sinner; implying that
his mercy ought to furnish a motive to excite us to repentance. “Keep ye
judgment, and do justice; for my salvation is near.”(1665) Again: “The
Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in
Jacob.”(1666) Again: “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon
him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous
man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy
upon him.”(1667) Again: “Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out.”(1668) Here it must be remarked, however, that this condition
is not annexed in such a manner, as though our repentance were the
fundamental and meritorious cause of pardon; but rather, because the Lord
has determined to have mercy upon men, in order that they may repent, he
informs them what course they must take if they wish to obtain his favour.
Therefore, as long as we inhabit the prison of our body, we shall have to
maintain an incessant conflict with the vices of our corrupt nature, and
even with our natural soul. Plato sometimes says, that the life of a
philosopher is a meditation of death. We may assert with more truth, that
the life of a Christian is perpetually employed in the mortification of
the flesh, till it is utterly destroyed, and the Spirit of God obtains the
sole empire within us. Wherefore I think that he has made a very
considerable proficiency, who has learned to be exceedingly displeased
with himself: not that he should remain in this distress, and advance no
further, but rather hasten and aspire towards God; that being ingrafted
into the death and life of Christ, he may make repentance the object of
his constant meditation and pursuit. And this cannot but be the conduct of
those who feel a genuine hatred of sin; for no man ever hated sin, without
having been previously captivated with the love of righteousness. This
doctrine, as it is the most simple of all, so also it appears to me to be
most consistent with the truth of the Scripture.

XXI. That repentance is a peculiar gift of God, must, I think, be so
evident from the doctrine just stated, as to preclude the necessity of a
long discourse to prove it. Therefore the Church praises and admires the
goodness of God, that he “hath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto
life;”(1669) and Paul, when he enjoins Timothy to be patient and gentle
towards unbelievers, says, “If God, peradventure, will give them
repentance, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the
devil.”(1670) God affirms, indeed, that he wills the conversion of all
men, and directs his exhortations promiscuously to all; but the efficacy
of these exhortations depends on the Spirit of regeneration. For it were
more easy to make ourselves men, than by our own power to endue ourselves
with a more excellent nature. Therefore, in the whole course of
regeneration, we are justly styled God’s “workmanship, created unto good
works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”(1671)
Whomsoever God chooses to rescue from destruction, them he vivifies by the
Spirit of regeneration: not that repentance is properly the cause of
salvation, but because, as we have already seen, it is inseparable from
faith and the mercy of God; since, according to the testimony of Isaiah,
“the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from
transgression in Jacob.”(1672) It remains an unshaken truth, that wherever
the fear of God prevails in the heart, the Spirit has operated to the
salvation of that individual. Therefore, in Isaiah, where believers are
bewailing and deploring their being deserted by God, they mention this as
a sign of reprobation, that their hearts are hardened by him.(1673) The
apostle also, intending to exclude apostates from all hope of salvation,
asserts, as a reason, that “it is impossible to renew them again unto
repentance;”(1674) because God, in the renewal of those whom he will not
suffer to perish, discovers an evidence of his paternal favour, and
attracts them to himself with the radiance of his serene and joyful
countenance; whilst, on the contrary, he displays his wrath in hardening
the reprobate, whose impiety is never to be forgiven.(1675) This kind of
vengeance the apostle denounces against wilful apostates, who, when they
depart from the faith of the gospel, deride God, contumeliously reject his
grace, profane and trample on the blood of Christ, and do all in their
power to crucify him again. For he does not, as is pretended by some
preposterously severe persons, preclude all voluntary sinners from a hope
of pardon. His design is to show that apostasy is unworthy of every
excuse, and therefore it is not strange that God punishes such a
sacrilegious contempt of himself with inexorable rigour. “For it is
impossible (he tells us) for those who were once enlightened, and have
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame.”(1676) Again: “If we sin wilfully after that we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a
certain fearful looking‐for of judgment.”(1677) These are the passages,
from a misinterpretation of which the Novatians formerly derived a
pretence for their extravagant opinions; and the apparent harshness of
which has offended some good men, and induced them to believe that this
Epistle is supposititious, though every part of it contains unequivocal
evidences of the apostolic spirit. But as we are contending only with
those who receive it, it is easy to show that these passages afford not
the least countenance to their error. In the first place, the apostle must
necessarily be in unison with his Master, who affirms that “all sin and
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost, which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the
world to come.”(1678) The apostle, I say, must certainly have been content
with this exception, unless we wish to make him an enemy to the grace of
Christ. Whence it follows, that pardon is denied to no particular sins,
except one, which proceeds from desperate fury, and cannot be attributed
to infirmity, but clearly proves a man to be possessed by the devil.

XXII. But, for the further elucidation of this subject, it is necessary to
inquire into the nature of that dreadful crime which will obtain no
forgiveness. Augustine somewhere defines it to be an obstinate
perverseness, attended with a despair of pardon, and continued till death;
but this is not consistent with the language of Christ, that “it shall not
be forgiven in this world.” For either this is a vain assertion, or the
sin may be committed in this life. But if the definition of Augustine be
right, it is never committed unless it continue till death. Others say,
that a man sins against the Holy Ghost, who envies the grace bestowed on
his brother. I know no foundation for this notion. But we will adduce the
true definition; which when it shall have been proved by strong
testimonies, will of itself easily overturn all others. I say, then, that
the sin against the Holy Ghost is committed by those who, though they are
so overpowered with the splendour of Divine truth that they cannot pretend
ignorance, nevertheless resist it with determined malice, merely for the
sake of resisting it. For Christ, in explanation of what he had asserted,
immediately subjoins, “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him.”(1679) And Matthew, instead of “blasphemy
against the Spirit,” says, “blasphemy of the Spirit.”(1680) How can any
one cast a reproach on the Son, that is not also directed against the
Spirit? Those who unadvisedly offend against the truth of God, which they
know not, and who ignorantly revile Christ, but at the same time have such
a disposition that they would not extinguish the Divine truth if revealed
to them, or utter one injurious word against him whom they knew to be the
Lord’s Christ,—they sin against the Father and the Son. Thus there are
many, in the present day, who most inveterately execrate the doctrines of
the gospel, which if they knew to be the evangelical doctrine, they would
be ready to venerate with their whole heart. But those who are convinced
in their conscience, that it is the word of God which they reject and
oppose, and yet continue their opposition,—they are said to blaspheme
against the Spirit, because they strive against the illumination which is
the work of the Holy Spirit. Such were some among the Jews, who, when they
were not able to resist the Spirit(1681) that spake by Stephen, yet
obstinately strove to resist. Many of them were undoubtedly urged to this
conduct by a zeal for the law; but it appears that there were others, who
were infuriated by a malignant impiety against God himself, that is,
against the doctrine which they knew to be from God. Such also were the
Pharisees, whom the Lord rebuked; who, in order to counteract the
influence of the Holy Spirit, slanderously ascribed it to the power of
Beelzebub.(1682) This, then, is “blasphemy of the Spirit,” where the
presumption of man deliberately strives to annihilate the glory of God.
This is implied in the observation of Paul, that he “obtained mercy,
because” he had “ignorantly in unbelief” committed those crimes, the
demerits of which would otherwise have excluded him from the grace of the
Lord.(1683) If the union of ignorance and unbelief was the reason of his
obtaining pardon, it follows that there is no room for pardon where
unbelief has been attended with knowledge.

XXIII. But, on a careful observation, you will perceive that the apostle
speaks not of one or more particular falls, but of the universal
defection, by which the reprobate exclude themselves from salvation. We
need not wonder that those whom John, in his canonical Epistle, affirms
not to have been of the number of the elect from whom they departed,
experience God to be implacable towards them.(1684) For he directs his
discourse against those who imagined that they might return to the
Christian religion, although they had once apostatized from it; to whom he
contradicts this false and pernicious notion, declaring, what is
absolutely true, that it is impossible for persons to return to the
communion of Christ, who have knowingly and wilfully rejected it. And it
is rejected, not by those who simply transgress the word of the Lord by a
dissolute and licentious life, but by those who professedly renounce all
his doctrines. Therefore the fallacy lies in the terms _falling away_ and
_sinning_; for the Novatians explain _falling away_ to take place, when
any one, after having been instructed by the law of the Lord that theft
and fornication ought not to be committed, yet abstains not from either of
these sins. But, on the contrary, I affirm that there is a tacit
antithesis understood, which ought to contain a repetition of all the
opposites of the things which had been previously mentioned; so that this
passage expresses not any particular vice, but a universal defection from
God, and if I may use the expression, an apostasy of the whole man. When
he speaks, therefore, of some who fell away, “after they were once
enlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers
of the Holy Ghost, and the powers of the world to come,”(1685) it must be
understood of persons who, with deliberate impiety, have smothered the
light of the Spirit, rejected the taste of the heavenly gift, alienated
themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit, and trampled on the word
of God and the powers of the world to come. And the more fully to express
that decided determination of impiety, he afterwards, in another place,
adds the word _wilfully_. For when he says, that “if we sin wilfully after
that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
sacrifice,”(1686) he denies not that Christ is a perpetual sacrifice to
expiate the iniquities of the saints, which almost the whole Epistle
expressly proclaims in describing the priesthood of Christ, but intends
that there remains no other where that is rejected. But it is rejected,
when the truth of the gospel is avowedly renounced.

XXIV. The objection of some, who conceive it to be severe and inconsistent
with the Divine clemency, that pardon should be refused to any who flee to
the Lord imploring his mercy, is easily answered. For he affirms not that
pardon is denied to them if they turn themselves to the Lord; but he
absolutely denies the possibility of their attaining to repentance,
because they are stricken with eternal blindness by the righteous judgment
of God, on account of their ingratitude. Nor is it any objection that the
same apostle afterwards accommodates to this subject the example of Esau,
who vainly endeavoured with weeping and lamentation to recover his lost
rights of primogeniture. Nor that the prophet utters this denunciation:
“though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.”(1687) For
such forms of expression signify neither true conversion nor invocation of
God, but the anxiety felt by the impious in extreme calamity, which
constrains them to consider, what before they carelessly disregarded, that
nothing can do them any good but the assistance of the Lord. And this they
do not so much implore, as bewail its being withheld from them. Therefore
the prophet intends by _crying_, and the apostle by _weeping_, only that
dreadful torment which excruciates the impious with the agonies of
despair. This requires to be carefully observed, because otherwise this
procedure of God would contradict his proclamation by the mouth of the
prophet, that as soon as the sinner shall have turned, he will be
propitious to him.(1688) And, as I have already remarked, it is certain
that the human mind is not changed for the better, except by the previous
influence of his grace. Nor will his promise respecting those who call
upon him, ever deceive; but it is improper to apply the terms _conversion_
and _prayer_ to that blind torment by which the reprobate are distracted,
when they see that it is necessary for them to seek God in order to find a
remedy for their miseries, while at the same time they continue to flee
from his approach.

XXV. But it is inquired, since the apostle denies that God is appeased by
a hypocritical repentance, how Ahab obtained pardon, and averted the
punishment with which he had been threatened, though he appears, from the
subsequent tenor of his life, to have been only terrified by a sudden
consternation. He clothed himself with sackcloth, sprinkled ashes upon his
head, lay on the ground, and, as it is declared concerning him, “humbled
himself before God;”(1689) but it was nothing to rend his garments, while
his heart remained perverse and inflated with wickedness. Yet we see how
God is inclined to clemency. I reply, that sometimes hypocrites are thus
spared for a season, yet that the wrath of God always abides upon them,
and that this is done not so much for their sakes, as for a public
example. For what benefit did Ahab receive from the mitigation of the
threatened punishment, but a respite from it during his continuance in
this world? The malediction of God, therefore, although concealed, fixed
itself in his family, and he himself went forward to eternal perdition.
The same may be observed in the case of Esau; for though he suffered a
repulse, yet a temporal benediction was granted to his tears.(1690) But
since the spiritual inheritance, according to the oracle of God, could
remain only with one of the brothers, when Jacob was chosen and Esau
rejected, that preterition shut out the Divine mercy; yet this consolation
was left to him as to a man on a level with the brutes, that he should be
enriched with “the fatness of the earth and the dew of heaven.” This is
what I have just observed ought to be considered as an example to others,
that we may learn to devote our minds and our exertions with more alacrity
to sincere repentance; because it is not to be doubted that those who are
truly and cordially converted will find God readily disposed to
forgiveness, whose clemency extends itself even to the unworthy, as long
as they manifest any appearance of contrition. At the same time, also, we
are taught what dreadful vengeance awaits all the obstinate, who, with
impudent countenances and hardened hearts, despise, disregard, and
ridicule the Divine threatenings. Thus he frequently extended his hand to
the children of Israel, to alleviate their distresses, notwithstanding
their supplications were hypocritical, and their hearts full of duplicity
and perfidy; as he complains in one of the Psalms,(1691) that they
immediately after returned to their former courses. He designed by his
merciful kindness, either to bring them to a serious conversion, or to
render them inexcusable. Yet, by the temporary remission of punishments,
he imposes on himself no perpetual law, but sometimes arises against
hypocrites with the greater severity, and enhances their punishments, to
manifest his extreme displeasure against hypocrisy. But he exhibits, as I
have observed, some examples of his readiness to pardon, in order to
animate the pious to a correction of their lives, and the more severely to
condemn the pride of those who obstinately kick against the goads.

Chapter IV. The Sophistry And Jargon Of The Schools Concerning Repentance,
Very Remote From The Purity Of The Gospel. On Confession And Satisfaction.

I come now to the discussion of those things which have been advanced by
the sophists of the schools concerning Repentance, which I shall run over
as briefly as possible; for it is not my design to pursue the subject at
large, lest this book, which I am endeavouring to make a compendium of
doctrine, should be drawn out to an immoderate extent. They have involved
a subject, otherwise not very intricate, in so many perplexities, that
those who have entered but a little way into their labyrinths will not
find it easy to extricate themselves. In the first place, the definition
they have given of repentance, clearly shows that they never understood
what it was; for they catch at some passages in the writings of the
fathers, which by no means express the nature of repentance; as, “that to
repent is to weep for sins previously committed, and not to commit sins to
be wept for.” Again: “that it is to lament evils that are past, and not to
commit new ones to be lamented.” Again: “that it is a kind of mournful
vengeance, punishing in ourselves what we bewail having committed.” Again:
“that it is a sorrow of heart and bitterness of soul on account of the
evils which a man has committed, or to which he has consented.” But though
we concede that these expressions were properly used by the fathers,
which, however, a contentious man would find no difficulty in denying, yet
they were used not with a view to describe repentance, but only to exhort
their readers to avoid relapsing into those crimes from which they had
been delivered. But if we are disposed to convert all observations of this
kind into definitions, others may be added with equal propriety. As this
of Chrysostom, “Repentance is a medicine which destroys sin, a gift
bestowed from heaven, an admirable virtue, a grace exceeding the power of
laws.” Moreover, the doctrine which they afterwards advance is still worse
than these definitions; for they are so obstinately riveted to external
exercises, that one can collect nothing else from immense volumes, but
that repentance is an austere discipline, which serves partly to subdue
the flesh, partly to chastise and punish vices; but concerning the
internal renovation of the mind, which is attended with a real reformation
of the life, they observe a wonderful silence. Of _contrition_ and
_attrition_, indeed, they treat largely; they torment souls with a
multitude of scruples, and drive them to extreme trouble and anxiety; but
when they appear to have thoroughly wounded the heart, they heal all the
bitterness by a slight sprinkling of ceremonies. Having thus quaintly
defined repentance, they divide it into contrition of heart, confession of
mouth, and satisfaction of work—a division which is no more agreeable to
the rules of logic than their definition, though they would be thought to
have spent their whole lives in composing syllogisms. But should any one
reason from the definition, (which is a kind of argumentation common among
logicians,) that a man may weep for sins previously committed, and commit
no more to be wept for; may lament evils that are past, and commit no more
to be lamented; may punish what he mourns that he has committed, &c.,
although he makes no confession with his mouth; how will they defend their
division? For if he who confesses not, be nevertheless truly penitent,
repentance may exist where there is no confession. But if they reply that
this division refers to repentance as a sacrament, or is to be understood
of the complete perfection of repentance, which they comprehend not in
their definition, they have no reason to accuse me; let them impute the
blame to themselves, for not giving definitions with more correctness and
perspicuity. For myself, indeed, according to my dull capacity, in all
controversies I refer every thing to the definition, which is the hinge
and foundation of the whole argument. But, admitting this to be their
magisterial license, we proceed to an attentive examination of the parts
themselves in order. When I neglect, and pass over as frivolous, things
which, with supercilious gravity, they represent as mysteries, I never do
it without design; not that I should find it very laborious to canvass the
arguments in which they conceive themselves to have discovered most
shrewdness and subtilty; but I could not conscientiously fatigue my
readers with such impertinences to no good purpose. From the questions
which they raise and agitate, and with which they miserably embarrass
themselves, it is easy to see, that they talk of subjects of which they
are utterly ignorant; such as this: Whether repentance for one sin be
pleasing to God during an obstinate continuance in others. Again: Whether
punishments inflicted by God be available for satisfaction. Again: Whether
repentance may be frequently repeated for mortal sins. On this point they
shamefully and impiously determine, that repentance is daily practised
only for venial sins. They also torment themselves much with a gross
error, in an expression of Jerome, “That repentance is a second plank
after a shipwreck;” thus giving proof, that they have never been awakened
from their brutish stupidity, so as to have even the most distant view of
the thousandth part of their sins.

II. I wish the reader to consider, that this is not a contention about an
insignificant trifle, but a question respecting the most serious of all
subjects—remission of sins. For by requiring, in repentance, compunction
of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work, they maintain,
that these three things are necessary to procure the remission of sins.
But if it be important for us to know any thing in the whole science of
religion, it is certainly of the greatest importance to apprehend, and
fully to understand, by what means, by what law, on what condition, and
with what facility or difficulty, remission of sins may be obtained.
Unless this knowledge be clear and certain, the conscience can have no
rest, no peace with God, no confidence or security; but is the subject of
perpetual trepidations and fluctuations, is disturbed, tormented, and
harassed, and dreads, hates, and avoids the presence of God. But if
remission of sins depend on those conditions to which they confine it, we
are in a most miserable and deplorable situation. They make contrition the
first step towards obtaining pardon, and require such as is due from us,
that is, such as is just and perfect; but they have not determined, when a
man may be assured that he has arrived at this degree of perfect
contrition. I grant, indeed, that every man ought to be sedulously and
earnestly urged, that by bitterly mourning for his sins, he may
continually augment his displeasure and hatred against them. For this
“sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of.”(1692) But
when such an anguish of sorrow is required as may correspond to the
magnitude of the guilt, and may be weighed in the balance with confidence
of pardon, then the wretched conscience is wonderfully tormented and
agitated, when it sees a due contrition for sins imposed on it, and
understands not the extent of the debt so as to be able to decide with
itself that it has discharged what was due from it. If they say that we
must do what we can, we still return to the same point; for when will any
man presume to flatter himself that he has exerted all his power in
bewailing his sins? Consciences, therefore, that have been long striving
with themselves, and exercised in tedious conflicts, but without finding
at length any place of rest, endeavour to procure some small alleviation,
extorting from themselves some sorrow, and forcing out some tears to
complete their contrition.

III. If they charge me with calumny, let them come forth and produce a
single individual, who has not, by this doctrine of contrition, either
been driven into despair, or endeavoured to avert the Divine judgment by a
pretended sorrow instead of real compunction. We have said ourselves, that
forgiveness of sins is never enjoyed without repentance, because none but
those who are afflicted and wounded with a consciousness of sins, can
sincerely implore the mercy of God; but we have likewise added, that
repentance is not the cause of remission of sins. But those torments of
soul, which they say are duties to be performed, we have put aside. We
have taught the sinner not to look on his compunction or on his tears, but
to fix both his eyes solely on the mercy of God. We have only declared,
that Christ called the labouring and heavy‐laden, when he was sent “to
preach the gospel to the poor, to heal the broken‐hearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that
are bound, and to comfort all that mourn.”(1693) This would exclude the
Pharisees, who, satisfied with their own righteousness, acknowledge not
their poverty; and despisers, who, careless of the wrath of God, seek no
remedy for their disease; for such neither labour, nor are heavy‐laden;
they are not broken‐hearted, or in bondage, or in captivity. But there is
a considerable difference, whether a man be taught to merit remission of
sins by a true and perfect contrition, (which no sinner can ever perform,)
or be instructed to hunger and thirst for the Divine mercy, that by the
knowledge of his misery, by his disquietude, fatigue, and captivity, he
may be shown where he ought to seek for consolation, rest, and liberty,
and may learn to glorify God by his humility.

IV. Concerning confession, there has always been a great controversy
between the canonists and the scholastic divines; the latter contending,
that confession is commanded by the word of God; the other, on the
contrary, maintaining that it is enjoined only by the ecclesiastical
constitutions. But this controversy has discovered the singular impudence
of the theologians, who have corrupted and violently distorted all the
passages of Scripture which they have cited in favour of their argument.
And when they perceived that they could not even thus obtain what they
desired, those who would appear more shrewd than others, resorted to this
subterfuge, that confession, as to the substance of it, came from the
Divine law, but afterwards derived its form from a positive law. In a
similar manner the most foolish lawyers pretend, that citations originated
from the Divine law, because it is said, “Adam, where art thou?”(1694) and
exceptions also, because Adam answered, as if by way of exception, “The
woman whom thou gavest to be with me,” &c.; but that both received their
form from the civil code. But let us examine by what arguments they prove
this confession, either formal or informal, to have been commanded by God.
The Lord, say they, sent leprous persons to the priests. What then? Did he
send them to confession? Who ever heard that the Levitical priests were
appointed to hear confessions? Therefore they resort to allegories: it was
enacted by the Mosaic law, that the priests should distinguish between
leprosy and leprosy; sin is a spiritual leprosy, concerning which it is
the office of the priests to decide. Before I reply to this, I would
inquire, by the way, if this passage constitutes them judges of the
spiritual leprosy, why do they arrogate to themselves the cognizance of
the natural and corporeal leprosy? Is not this trifling with the
Scriptures? The law commits to the Levitical priests the cognizance of the
leprosy; let us usurp this to ourselves. Sin is a spiritual leprosy; let
us also take cognizance of sin. Now, I reply, “The priesthood being
changed, there is made, of necessity, a change also of the law.”(1695) All
the priestly functions have been transferred to Christ; in him they are
fulfilled and finished; therefore every privilege and honour of the
sacerdotal office has been transferred to him alone. If they are so
extremely fond of pursuing allegories, let them propose Christ to
themselves as the only priest, and accumulate on his tribunal the
unlimited jurisdiction over all things; this we shall easily admit.
Besides, this allegory of theirs is very absurd, since it places among the
ceremonies a law that was merely political. Why, then, does Christ send
leprous persons to the priests? To preclude the priests from calumniating
him with a violation of the law, which commanded him that was cured of the
leprosy to show himself to the priest, and to be purged by the oblation of
a sacrifice. “Go (said he) show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift
that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”(1696) And truly this
miracle was to be a testimony to them; for they had pronounced him
leprous, now they pronounce him healed. Are they not, whether willingly or
reluctantly, constrained to become witnesses of the miracles of Christ?
Christ gives them his miracle for their examination; they cannot deny it;
but because they still cavil, this work is a testimony to them. Thus it is
said, “This gospel shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto
all nations.”(1697) Again: “Ye shall be brought before governors and
kings, for a testimony against them.”(1698) That is, that they may be more
powerfully convicted at the judgment of God. But if they would rather
coincide with Chrysostom, he also teaches, that Christ did this on account
of the Jews, that he might not be deemed a transgressor of the law. Though
on a point so clear I am ashamed to adduce the suffrage of any man; when
Christ declares that he leaves the legal rights entirely to the priests,
as the professed enemies of the gospel, who were always ready to cavil, if
their mouths were not stopped. Wherefore the Popish priests, in order to
retain this possession, should publicly espouse the party of those whom it
is necessary to restrain by force from uttering their curses against
Christ. For with this his true ministers have no concern.

V. Their second argument they derive from the same source, that is, from
allegory; as though allegories were sufficient for the confirmation of any
dogma. Let them be admitted as sufficient, if I do not prove that those
very allegories may be urged by me with more plausibility than they
possibly can by them. They plead, therefore, that the Lord commanded his
disciples to loose Lazarus from his bandages, when he was raised from the
grave.(1699) Here, in the first place, they are guilty of falsehood; for
it is nowhere recorded, that the Lord said this to his disciples; and it
is much more probable that he said it to the Jews who were standing near
him, that the miracle might be rendered more evident, beyond all suspicion
of fraud, and that his power might appear the greater, from his raising
the dead to life without the least touch, solely by the call of his voice.
For I apprehend, that the Lord, in order to remove from the minds of the
Jews every unfavourable suspicion, chose that they should roll back the
stone, should perceive the fetid odour, should see the certain tokens of
death, should behold him rising by the sole energy of a word, and be the
first to touch him on his restoration to life. And this is the opinion of
Chrysostom. But admitting this to have been addressed to the disciples,
what will they gain by it? That the Lord gave his apostles the power of
loosing; but with how much more aptitude and skill might these words be
handled in an allegorical sense, if we should say, that God intended by
this emblem to instruct believers, that they ought to loose those whom he
has raised to life; that is, that they should not recall to remembrance
the sins which he had forgotten; that they should not condemn as sinners
those whom he had absolved; that they should not continue to upbraid with
offences which he had forgiven; that where he is merciful and ready to
spare, they should not be severe and rigorous to punish! Nothing, surely,
ought to be a stronger motive to the exercise of forgiveness by us, than
the example of that judge, who threatens to be implacable towards them who
are too rigorous and cruel. Let them go now and boast of their allegories.

VI. They come to a closer contest, when they oppose us with what they
apprehend to be plain passages. Those who came to the baptism of John
confessed their sins;(1700) and James directs us to confess our sins one
to another.(1701) It is no wonder, if those who desired to be baptized
confessed their sins, for it is said, that John “preached the baptism of
repentance,” and “baptized with water unto repentance.” Whom, then, should
he baptize, but such as confessed themselves sinners? Baptism is an emblem
of remission of sins; and who should be admitted to this emblem but
sinners, and those who acknowledged themselves to be such? They confessed
their sins, therefore, in order to be baptized. Nor is it without reason
that James directs us to confess one to another. But if they would observe
what immediately follows, they would perceive, that this also affords them
very little support. “Confess (says he) your faults one to another, and
pray for one another.” He connects mutual confession and mutual prayer. If
our confessions must be made only to priests, then our prayers ought to be
offered up for them alone. But would it not follow from the language of
James, that priests alone might make confessions? For when he enjoins
mutual confession, he addresses such only as have a right to hear the
confessions of others. Αλληλοι implies mutually, by turns, successively,
or reciprocally. But none can reciprocally confess, but those who are
qualified to hear confessions. And since they dignify the priests
exclusively with this prerogative, we also relinquish to them alone the
task of making confession. Then let us dismiss such impertinences, and
attend to the real meaning of the apostle, which is simple and clear; it
is, that we should reciprocally communicate our infirmities to each other,
to receive from one another mutual advice, mutual compassion, and mutual
consolation; and, also, that being mutually conscious of the infirmities
of our brethren, we should pray to the Lord on their behalf. Why, then, do
they quote James in opposition to us, when we so strongly urge a
confession of the Divine mercy? But no man can confess the mercy of God,
if he has not previously confessed his own misery. Indeed, we rather
pronounce an anathema against him who has not confessed himself a sinner
before God, before his angels, before the Church, and, in a word, before
all mankind. “For the Scripture hath concluded all under sin—that every
mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before
God;”(1702) and that he alone may be justified and exalted.

VII. But I wonder with what face they can presume to contend, that the
confession of which they speak is of Divine appointment. The practice we
admit to be very ancient, but we can easily prove, that Christians were
formerly quite at liberty as to the use of it. That there was no fixed law
or constitution respecting it till the time of Innocent III., is certain
from the testimony of their own histories. Surely, if there had been a
more ancient law, they would rather have cited it, than, by being content
with a decree of the Council of Lateran, have rendered themselves
ridiculous even in the eyes of children. They hesitate not in other cases
to fabricate fictitious decrees, which they ascribe to the most ancient
councils, that they may dazzle the eyes of the simple by a veneration for
antiquity. In this instance they never thought of obtruding such a
forgery. Therefore, according to their own testimony, three hundred years
have not yet elapsed, since Innocent III. introduced the snare, and
imposed the necessity of confession. But, to say nothing respecting the
time, the barbarism of the diction is, of itself, sufficient to deprive
that law of all credit. For the good fathers enjoin, that every person, of
both sexes, shall, once in every year, make a particular confession of all
sins to the proper priest; but some wits facetiously object, that this
precept binds none but hermaphrodites, and relates to no one who is either
a male or a female. Moreover, their disciples have betrayed still greater
folly, in their inability to explain what is meant by the proper priest.
Whatever may be clamorously pretended by all the Pope’s mercenary
disputants, we are certain, that Christ was not the author of this law,
which compels men to enumerate their sins, and that twelve centuries
passed away after the resurrection of Christ, before any such law was
promulgated; so that this tyranny was not introduced till after the
extinction of piety and learning, when masques, occupying the place of
pastors, had assumed an unlimited license of doing whatever they pleased.
There are also plain testimonies, in histories and other ancient writings,
which inform us, that this was a political discipline instituted by
bishops, not a law given by Christ or his apostles. Of a great number, I
shall produce only one, which will be a clear proof of this assertion.
Sozomen, in his Ecclesiastical History, relates, that this ordinance of
the bishops was diligently observed in all the Western Churches, and
especially at Rome. He fully implies that it was not the universal custom
of all the churches, and says, that one of the Presbyters was peculiarly
appointed to this office. In this, he abundantly confutes the false
pretensions of these men, that the keys were given promiscuously, for this
use, to the whole sacerdotal order, since it was not the common function
of all priests, but the peculiar department of one who was chosen to it by
the bishop. This is the same, who, in the present day, in every cathedral
church is called the Penitentiary, who takes cognizance of crimes of
peculiar enormity, and such as are censured for the sake of example. The
historian immediately adds, that this was the custom also at
Constantinople, till a certain matron, pretending to go to confession, was
discovered to have concealed, under this specious pretext, a criminal
connection with the deacon of that church. On account of this crime,
Nectarius, the bishop of the church, (a man eminent for sanctity and
erudition,) abolished the ceremony of confession. Here let them erect
their asinine ears. If auricular confession had been a law of God, how
could Nectarius have presumed to reverse and disannul it? Will they accuse
Nectarius of heresy and schism, who is acknowledged by all the fathers to
have been a holy man of God? But the same sentence would condemn the
Constantinopolitan church, in which Sozomen affirms the custom of
confession not only to have been discontinued for a season, but to have
been altogether disused down to his time. And they would accuse of
apostasy, not only the church of Constantinople, but all the Oriental
churches, who neglected a law which they maintain to be inviolable and
obligatory on all Christians.

VIII. But this abrogation is plainly attested by Chrysostom, who was
himself also a bishop of the church of Constantinople, in so many places,
that it is surprising how they dare to open their mouths in contradiction
of it. “Confess your sins, (says he,) that you may obliterate them. If you
are ashamed to tell any one what sins you have committed, confess them
daily in your soul. I say not, that you should confess them to your
fellow‐servant, who may reproach you; confess them to God, who cures them.
Confess your sins on your bed, that there your conscience may daily
recognize its crimes.” Again: “But, now, it is not necessary to confess in
the presence of witnesses; let an inquisition into your transgressions be
the work of your own thoughts; let there be no witness of this judgment;
let God alone see you confessing.” Again: “I conduct you not into the
public view of your fellow‐servants; I do not oblige you to reveal your
sins to men; lay open your conscience in the presence of God. Show your
wounds to the Lord, who is the best physician, and implore a remedy from
him; show them to him, who upbraideth not, but most mercifully heals.”
Again: “You certainly should not tell it to a man, lest he reproach you;
nor is confession to be made to a fellow‐servant, who may publish it; but
show your wounds to the Lord, who exercises his care over you, and is a
most merciful physician.” He afterwards introduces God, speaking thus: “I
constrain you not to come forth into the midst of a theatre, and assemble
a multitude of witnesses; declare your sin privately to me alone, that I
may heal your wound.” Shall we say, that Chrysostom proceeded to such a
degree of temerity, when he wrote those and similar passages, as to
liberate the consciences of men from obligations imposed on them by the
Divine law? Certainly not. But he dares not to require as necessary what
he knows is never prescribed in the word of God.

IX. But to place the whole subject in a more plain and familiar light, we
will first faithfully state what kind of confession is taught in the word
of God; and then we will subjoin an account of those inventions of the
Papists, not indeed of all, (for who could exhaust that immense ocean?)
but only of those which comprise the substance of their doctrine
respecting secret confession. Here it grieves me to mention, how
frequently the old translator has translated confess instead of praise;
which is well known even to the most unlearned; only it is necessary to
expose their audacity, in transferring to their own tyrannical edict what
was written with reference to the praises of God. To prove the virtue of
confession to exhilarate the mind, they produce this passage from the
Psalmist: “With the voice of exultation and confession.”(1703) But if such
a metamorphosis of the passage be admitted, we shall be able to infer any
thing from any thing. But since they are thus lost to all sense of shame,
let the pious reader remember, that they have been consigned over to a
reprobate mind by the righteous vengeance of God, to render their
presumption the more detestable. If we are satisfied with the simple
doctrine of the Scripture, we shall be in no danger of being deluded by
such fallacies; for there one method of confession is prescribed; which
is, that since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and obliterates sins,
we should confess our sins to him, that we may obtain pardon. He is a
physician; to him, then, let us discover our wounds. He is injured and
offended; let us pray to him for peace. He is the searcher of hearts, and
privy to all thoughts; let us hasten to pour out our hearts before him.
Finally, it is he who calls sinners; let us not delay to approach him.
David says, “I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not
hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou
forgavest the iniquity of my sin.”(1704) Similar to this is another
confession of David: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according unto the
multitude of thy tender mercies.”(1705) Such, also, is the confession of
Daniel: “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done
wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts.”(1706)
And such are the other confessions, which frequently occur in the
Scriptures, the recital of which would almost fill a volume. John says,
“If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins.”(1707) To whom must we confess? To him, certainly; and this we do,
if we prostrate ourselves before him with a distressed and humbled heart;
if we sincerely accuse and condemn ourselves in his presence, and pray to
be pardoned by his goodness and mercy.

X. Whoever from the heart makes this confession before God, will also,
without doubt, have a tongue prepared for confession, as often as it shall
be necessary to proclaim the Divine mercy among men; and not only to
whisper the secret of his mind once into the ear of an individual, but
frequently and publicly, and in the hearing of the whole world,
ingenuously to declare, both his own ignominy, and the magnificence and
glory of God. In this manner, when David was reproved by Nathan, he felt
compunction of conscience, and confessed his sin both to God and to men:
“I have sinned (said he) against the Lord;”(1708) that is, I now make no
excuse, nor use the least subterfuge to prevent all men from condemning me
as a sinner, and what I wished to conceal from the Lord, from being
revealed also to men. The secret confession, therefore, which is made to
God, is followed by a voluntary confession before men, whenever it
contributes either to the Divine glory or to our humiliation. For this
reason, the Lord anciently enjoined upon the Israelites, that all the
people should confess their iniquities publicly in the temple, by the
mouth of the priest.(1709) For he foresaw this assistance to be necessary
for them, to bring every person to a proper view of himself. And it is
reasonable, that, by the confession of our misery, we should glorify the
goodness and mercy of God, both among ourselves and before the whole
world.

XI. This kind of confession ought to be both ordinary, in the Church; and
extraordinary, to be practised in a particular manner whenever the people
at large are chargeable with the guilt of any common crime. We have an
example of the latter in that solemn confession which was made by all the
people under the auspices of Ezra and Nehemiah. For as their long exile,
the destruction of their city and temple, and the subversion of their
religion, were punishments of the common defection of all, they could not
properly acknowledge the blessing of deliverance, unless they had first
confessed their guilt. Nor is it of any importance if, in a congregation,
there be sometimes a few innocent persons; for as they are members of a
languid and diseased body, they ought not to boast of health. Nor is it
possible, indeed, but they must contract some of the pollution, and
sustain part of the guilt. Therefore, whenever we are afflicted with
pestilence, or war, or sterility, or any other calamity, if it be our duty
to resort to mourning, to fasting, and other expressions of
guilt,—confession itself, on which all these other things depend, ought by
no means to be neglected. The ordinary confession is not only recommended
from the mouth of the Lord, but no judicious man, who has considered its
usefulness, will venture to condemn it. For since, in every religious
assembly, we introduce ourselves into the presence of God and angels, how
shall we commence our services, except by an acknowledgment of our
unworthiness? But this, you will say, is done in every prayer; for
whenever we pray for pardon, we make a confession of our sins. This I
acknowledge. But, if you consider our extreme carelessness, or drowsiness,
or stupidity, you will admit to me, that it would be a salutary
regulation, if the generality of Christians were accustomed to humble
themselves by some solemn act of confession. For though the ceremony,
which the Lord enjoined on the Israelites, was a part of the tutelage of
the law, yet the thing itself, in some measure, belongs also to us. And,
indeed, we see that in all well‐regulated churches this custom is
advantageously observed; that on every Lord’s day the minister makes a
formal confession, in which he represents all as guilty of sin, and
supplicates pardon from the Lord on behalf of all. Finally, by this key
the gate of prayer is opened, both to individuals in private, and in
public to all the congregation.

XII. Moreover, the Scripture sanctions two kinds of private confession;
one to be made for our own sake, which is referred to in the direction of
James, that we should “confess our faults one to another;”(1710) for he
means, that, revealing our infirmities to one another, we should assist
each other with mutual advice and consolation; another, which is to be
made for the sake of our neighbour, to pacify and reconcile him to us, if
we have done him any injury. In the former species of confession, though
James, by not expressly appointing any one into whose bosom we should
disburden ourselves, leaves us quite at liberty to confess to any member
of the church who shall appear most suitable; yet, since the pastors must
generally be considered more proper than others, we ought chiefly to make
choice of them. I say that they are more suitable than others, since, in
their very vocation to the ministry, they are designated by the Lord, to
instruct us to subdue and correct our sins, and to console us with a
confidence of pardon. For though the office of mutual admonition and
reproof is committed to all, yet it is especially confided to ministers.
And so, while we all ought mutually to console and confirm each other in a
confidence of the Divine mercy, yet we see, that ministers are constituted
witnesses and sureties of it, that they may afford our consciences a
stronger assurance of the remission of sins; insomuch that they themselves
are said to remit sins and to loose souls.(1711) When you find this
attributed to them, consider that it is for your benefit. Therefore, let
every believer remember that it is his duty, if he feels such secret
anguish or affliction from a sense of his sins, that he cannot extricate
himself without some exterior aid, not to neglect the remedy offered him
by the Lord; which is, that in order to alleviate his distress, he should
use private confession with his pastor, and, to obtain consolation, should
privately implore his assistance, whose office it is, both publicly and
privately, to comfort the people of God with the doctrine of the gospel.
But we should always observe such a degree of moderation, as to lay no
yoke on the conscience, where God has given no positive command. Hence it
follows, that such confession ought to be free, so as not to be required
of all, but only to be recommended to those who conceive themselves to
need it. It follows also, that they who practise it on account of their
need of it, should neither be compelled by any precept, nor be induced by
any artifice, to enumerate all their sins; but only so far as they shall
think beneficial to themselves, that they may receive solid consolation.
Faithful pastors ought not only to leave the churches in possession of
this liberty, but also to defend and vindicate it with all their power, if
they wish to preserve their ministry from tyranny, and the people from
superstition.

XIII. Concerning the other species of confession, Christ says, in the
Gospel of Matthew, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there
rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift
before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and
then come and offer thy gift.”(1712) Thus is that charity, which has been
broken by our offence, to be repaired by acknowledging the fault we have
committed, and imploring forgiveness. In this kind is comprehended the
confession of those who have sinned to the offence of the whole Church.
For, if Christ esteems the private offence of one man of such importance,
as to prohibit from the sacred ordinances all those who have sinned
against their brethren till they have been restored to favour by an
adequate satisfaction,—how much stronger is the reason, that he who, by
any evil example, has injured the whole Church, should reconcile it to
himself by an acknowledgment of his guilt! Thus was the Corinthian
readmitted to the communion, after having submitted to reproof.(1713) This
mode of confession is stated by Cyprian to have been practised in the
ancient Church. “They repent (says he) in due time; and afterwards they
come to confession; and by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and
clergy, they receive a right to communion.” The Scripture knows nothing of
any other method or form of confession; and it is not our province to
impose new chains on men’s consciences, which Christ most strictly forbids
to reduce under the yoke of bondage. But that the sheep should present
themselves to their pastor, whenever they desire to partake of the sacred
supper, I am so far from opposing, that I earnestly wish it were
universally observed. For those who experience distress of conscience may
receive singular benefit from such an interview; and those who require to
be admonished, will thus afford an opportunity for admonitions; provided
that care be always taken to guard against tyranny and superstition.

XIV. The power of the keys is exercised in these three kinds of
confession: either when the whole church implores pardon by a solemn
acknowledgment of its transgressions; or when an individual, who, by any
remarkable crime, has occasioned a common offence, declares his
repentance; or when he who needs the assistance of the minister on account
of the disquietude of his conscience, discloses his infirmity to him. The
removal of an offence proceeds on a different principle; because, though
it is also designed to produce peace of conscience, yet the principal end
is, that animosity may be destroyed, and the minds of men united in the
bonds of peace. But this advantage, which I have mentioned, is by no means
to be despised, that we may confess our sins with the greater readiness.
For, when the whole church stands, as it were, before the tribunal of God,
when they confess themselves guilty, and have no refuge but in the Divine
mercy,—it is no mean or trivial consolation to have Christ’s ambassador
present, furnished with the mandate of reconciliation, by whom they may
have their absolution pronounced. Here the usefulness of the keys is
deservedly celebrated, when this embassy is rightly performed, with
becoming order and reverence. So, when he who had, in some measure,
alienated himself from the Church, is pardoned and restored to the unity
of the brethren, how great a blessing does he experience in knowing
himself to be forgiven by them, to whom Christ has said, “Whose soever
sins ye shall remit on earth, they shall be remitted in heaven!”(1714) Nor
is private absolution less efficacious or beneficial, when it is requested
by those who need a particular remedy for the relief of their infirmities.
For it frequently happens, that he who hears the general promises, which
are addressed to the whole congregation of believers, nevertheless remains
in some suspense, and his mind is still disquieted with doubts of the
forgiveness of his sins. The same person, if he discloses to his pastor
the secret distress of his mind, and hears this language of the gospel
particularly directed to him, “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven
thee,”(1715) will encourage his mind to an assurance, and will be
liberated from that trepidation with which he was before disturbed. But
when we are treating of the keys, we must always be cautious not to dream
of any power distinct from the preaching of the gospel. This subject will
again be discussed more fully in another place, where we shall have to
treat of the government of the Church; and there we shall see, that all
the power of binding and loosing, which Christ has conferred on the
Church, is inseparable from the word. But this is chiefly applicable to
the ministry of the keys, the whole force and meaning of which consist in
this, that the grace of the gospel should be confirmed and sealed, as it
were, to the minds of the faithful, in public as well as private, by those
whom the Lord has ordained to this office; which cannot be done but by
preaching alone.

XV. But what is the doctrine of the Romish divines? They maintain, that
all persons, of both sexes, as soon as they shall have arrived at years of
discretion, should, once at least in every year, confess all their sins to
their own priest; that there is no remission of sin, unless they have
firmly resolved to confess it; that unless they fulfil this resolution,
when opportunity offers, there is no admittance for them into Paradise;
and, moreover, that the priest has the power of the keys, with which he
may loose the sinner or bind him; because Christ has not said in vain,
“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”(1716) But
concerning this power, they have obstinate contentions among themselves.
Some say, that there is essentially but one key, namely, the power of
binding and loosing; that knowledge is required, indeed, for the good use
of it, but that it is only like an accessory, not an essential
concomitant. Others, perceiving this to be too unlimited a license, have
mentioned two keys, discretion and power. Others, again, observing that
the wickedness of the priests was restrained by such moderation, have
invented other keys, an authority of discerning which they might use in
pronouncing decisions; and a power, which they might exert in executing
their sentences; with knowledge, to assist as a counsellor. But they
venture not to explain this binding and loosing simply to mean, forgiving
and obliterating sins; because they hear the Lord proclaiming by the
prophet, “I am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour. I, even I, am
he which blotteth out thy transgressions.”(1717) But they say, that it
belongs to the priest to pronounce who are bound or loosed, and to declare
whose sins are remitted or retained; and that he declares it, either by
confession, when he absolves and retains sins; or by his sentence, when he
excommunicates, and when he receives to the communion of the sacraments.
Lastly, when they perceive that they are not yet extricated from this
difficulty, but that it may always be objected, that their priests
frequently bind and loose improper persons, who are not therefore bound or
loosed in heaven,—as their last resource, they reply, that the commission
of the keys must be understood with some limitation, Christ having
promised, that the sentence of the priest, which has been justly
delivered, according to the merits of the persons bound or loosed, shall
be confirmed at his tribunal. They add also, that these keys were given by
Christ to all priests, who receive them from the bishops on their
promotion to the sacerdotal office; but that the free use of them belongs
only to those who exercise ecclesiastical functions; that the keys
themselves remain, indeed, with the excommunicated or suspended ones, but
that they are rusty and disused. And those who advance these things may
justly be considered modest and sober, in comparison with others, who, on
a new anvil, have fabricated new keys, with which they tell us the
treasure of the Church is locked up; which we shall examine in the proper
place.

XVI. I shall briefly reply to each of these things; though without
noticing, at present, the justice or injustice with which they bind the
souls of the faithful by their laws; as that will be considered in due
order. But when they impose a law respecting the enumeration of all sins;
when they deny that sin is forgiven, but on condition that a firm
resolution has been formed to confess it; when they say that there remains
no entrance into Paradise, if the opportunity of confession has been
neglected,—this is altogether intolerable. Must all sins be enumerated?
David, who (I suppose) had often meditated the confession of his sins,
nevertheless exclaimed, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me
from secret faults.”(1718) And in another place: “Mine iniquities are gone
over mine head; as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.”(1719) He had
just apprehensions of the vast abyss of our sins, of the numerous species
of our crimes, of the many heads this monster bore, and the long tail it
drew after it. Therefore he attempted not to detail his transgressions,
but from the abyss of his distresses cried to the Lord. “I am afflicted
and ready to die; my spirit is overwhelmed within me; I dwell in darkness,
as those that have been long dead;”(1720) “the sorrows of death compassed
me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me;”(1721) “I sink in deep mire;
deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink.”(1722) Who can now think
of recounting his sins, when he sees that David was unable to enter on an
enumeration of his?

XVII. The souls of those who have been affected with any discoveries of
God, have been most cruelly tormented by this fatal delusion. First, they
called themselves to an account; they divided sins into boughs, branches,
twigs, and leaves, according to the distinctions of these confessors: then
they examined the qualities, quantities, and circumstances; and the
business made some little progress. But, when they had advanced further,
they were surrounded on all sides by the sea and the sky, no port, no
haven in prospect; the more they had passed over, the greater mass was
always accumulating on their view; they beheld, as it were, lofty
mountains rising before them, and no time or labour seemed to encourage
the least hope of escaping. Thus they remained in extreme distress, and
after all, found it terminate in nothing but despair. Then the remedy
applied by those cruel murderers, to alleviate the wounds which they had
made, was, that every one should do to the uttermost of his ability. But
new cares again disturbed, and new agonies again excruciated, these
miserable souls: I have not devoted sufficient time; I have not applied
with proper diligence; I have omitted many things through negligence, and
the forgetfulness which arises from negligence is inexcusable. To assuage
such pains, other remedies were now added: Repent of your negligence; if
it be not too great, it will be forgiven. But all these things cannot heal
the wound; nor do they act as alleviations of the malady, but rather as
poisons concealed in honey, that they may not by their harshness offend at
the first taste, but may penetrate into the inmost parts before they are
perceived. This terrible injunction, therefore, is always pursuing them
and resounding in their ears: “Confess all your sins;” nor can that terror
be appeased but by some certain consolation. Here let the reader consider
the possibility of taking an account of the actions of a whole year, and
selecting the sins of every day; since experience convinces every man
that, when at evening he comes to examine the delinquencies of only one
day, his memory is confounded by their great multitude and variety. I
speak not of stupid hypocrites, who, if they have noticed three or four
gross sins, imagine they have discharged their duty; but of the true
worshippers of God, who, when they find themselves overwhelmed with the
examination they have made, conclude, in the language of John, “If our
heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.”(1723) They tremble,
therefore, before that Judge, whose knowledge far exceeds our
apprehension.

XVIII. The acquiescence of a great part of the world in such soothing
arts, employed to temper this mortal poison, was not indulged from a
belief that God was satisfied, or because they were altogether satisfied
themselves; but that, like mariners, having cast anchor in the midst of
the sea, they might enjoy a short respite from the toils of navigation, or
like a fatigued and fainting traveller, might lie down in the road. I
shall not take much trouble to establish this point for every man may be
his own witness of it. I will briefly state the nature of this law. First,
it is absolutely impracticable; therefore it can only destroy, condemn,
confound, and precipitate into ruin and despair. In the next place, it
diverts sinners from a true sense of their sins, and makes them
hypocrites, ignorant both of God and themselves. For while they are wholly
employed in enumerating their sins, they forget, in the mean time, that
latent source of vices, their secret iniquities and inward pollutions, a
knowledge of which is above all things necessary to a consideration of
their misery. But the most certain rule of confession is to acknowledge
and confess the abyss of our guilt to be vast beyond all our
comprehension. The publican’s confession appears to have been composed
according to this rule—“God be merciful to me a sinner.”(1724) As though
he had said, “All that I am is utterly sinful; I cannot reach the
magnitude of my sins, either with my tongue or with my mind; let the abyss
of thy mercy swallow up this abyss of sin.” But you will say, Are not
particular sins, then, to be confessed? Is no confession accepted by God
unless it be comprised in these precise words, “I am a sinner?” I reply,
that we should rather endeavour, as far as we possibly can, to pour out
our whole heart before the Lord; and not only confess ourselves sinners in
a single expression, but truly and cordially acknowledge ourselves such;
and consider in all our reflections, how great and various is the
pollution of sin; not only that we are unclean, but the nature and extent
of our impurity; not only that we are debtors, but the magnitude and
number of the debts with which we are burdened; not only that we are
wounded, but what a multitude of mortal wounds we have received. Yet when
the sinner has wholly unbosomed himself before God in this acknowledgment,
let him seriously and sincerely reflect, that more sins still remain, and
that the secret recesses of his guilt are too deep to be entirely
disclosed. And therefore let him exclaim with David, “Who can understand
his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.”(1725) Now, when they
affirm, that sins are not forgiven without a strong resolution having been
formed to confess them, and that the gate of Paradise is shut against him
who has neglected an opportunity afforded him of confessing,—far be it
from us to make them such a concession. For there is no other remission of
sins now than there always has been. Among all those who are said to have
obtained remission of sins from Christ, none are said to have made a
confession in the ear of any priest. Nor, indeed, was it possible for them
thus to confess, when there were no confessionary priests, and confession
itself was altogether unknown. And this confession was unheard of for many
ages after, during which sins were forgiven without this condition. But,
not to debate any longer as respecting a doubtful point, “the word of God
which abideth for ever,”(1726) is perfectly clear: “If the wicked will
turn from all his sins, all his transgressions that he hath committed,
they shall not be mentioned unto him.”(1727) He who presumes to make any
addition to this declaration, does not bind sins, but limits the mercy of
God. When they contend that judgment cannot be given without a trial of
the cause, we are prepared with an answer—that they are guilty of arrogant
presumption in creating themselves judges. And it is surprising that they
so securely fabricate principles for themselves, which no man of sound
understanding will admit. They boast that the office of binding and
loosing is committed to them, as though it were a kind of jurisdiction
annexed to examination. That the apostles were strangers to this
authority, their whole doctrine proclaims; and to know certainly whether
the sinner be loosed, belongs not to the priest, but to Him of whom
absolution is implored; since the priest who bears the confession, can
never know whether the enumeration of sins be true and perfect. Thus there
would be no absolution, but what must be restricted to the words of the
person to be judged. Besides, the loosing of sins depends entirely on
faith and repentance; which both elude the knowledge of man, when sentence
is to be given respecting another. It follows, therefore, that the
certainty of binding and loosing is not subject to the decision of an
earthly judge; because a minister, in the legitimate execution of his
office, can pronounce only a conditional absolution; but that the
declaration, “_Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted_,” is spoken
for the sake of sinners, to preclude every doubt that the pardon, which is
promised according to the command and word of God, will be ratified in
heaven.

XIX. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if we condemn and desire the
total removal of this auricular confession—a thing so pestilent, and in so
many respects injurious to the Church. Even if it were a thing
abstractedly indifferent, yet, since it is of no use or benefit, but has
occasioned so much impiety, sacrilege, and error,—who can refuse to admit,
that it ought to be immediately abolished? They mention, indeed, some
uses, which they boast of as very beneficial; but these are mere fictions,
or productive of no advantage whatever. One circumstance they state as a
peculiar recommendation, that the shame of the person who confesses is a
grievous punishment, by which the sinner is rendered more cautious in
future, and prevents the vengeance of God by punishing himself. As though
we humble not a man with a sufficient degree of shame, when we summon him
to the supreme tribunal of heaven—to the cognizance of God! It is a
wonderful advantage, indeed, if we cease to sin through a shame of one
man, but are never ashamed of having God for a witness of our evil
conscience! Though this very notion is utterly false; for it is
universally observable, that nothing produces a greater confidence or
licentiousness in sinning, than the idea entertained by some men, after
they have made their confession to a priest, that they may “wipe their
mouth and say, I have done no wickedness.”(1728) And they not only become
more presumptuous in their sins throughout the year, but, having no
concern about confession for the rest of the year, they never aspire after
God, they never retire into themselves, but accumulate sins upon sins,
till they disembogue them, as they imagine, all at once. But when they
have done this, they conceive themselves to be exonerated of their burden,
and to have transferred from God the judgment they have conferred on the
priest; and that they have deprived God of remembrance, by the information
they have communicated to the priest. Besides, who rejoices to see the day
of confession approaching? Who goes to confess with alacrity of heart; and
does not rather come with unwillingness and reluctance, as though he were
forcibly dragged to a prison; except perhaps the priests, who pleasantly
entertain themselves with mutual narrations of their exploits, as with
humorous anecdotes? I will not soil much paper by relating the monstrous
abominations with which auricular confession abounds. I only remark, if
that holy man was not guilty of indiscretion, who, on account of one
rumour of fornication, banished confession from his church, or rather from
the memory of his people,—we are thus reminded of what ought to be done in
the present day, when rapes, adulteries, incests, and seductions exceed
all enumeration.

XX. As the advocates of confession plead the power of the keys, and rest
upon it all the merits of their cause, we must examine the weight that is
due to this argument. Are the keys, then, (say they,) given without any
reason? Is it without any cause that it is said, “Whatsoever ye shall
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven?”(1729) Do we, then, frustrate
the declaration of Christ? I reply, that there was an important reason why
the keys should be given; as I have already stated, and shall again more
explicitly show, when I come to treat of excommunication. But what if I
refute the whole of their pretensions with one argument, that their
priests are not vicars, or successors of the apostles? But this, also,
will be discussed in another place. Now, they set up, as their principal
defence, an engine by which their whole structure may be completely
demolished. For Christ never conferred on his apostles the power of
binding and loosing, till after he had given them the Holy Ghost. I deny,
therefore, that the power of the keys belongs to any, who have not
previously received the Holy Ghost. I deny that any one can use the keys,
unless the Spirit guide and instruct him, and direct him how he ought to
act. They impertinently pretend, that they have the Holy Ghost; but in
reality they deny it; unless perhaps they imagine, as they certainly do,
that the Holy Ghost is a useless and worthless thing; but they will not be
believed. By this weapon they are completely vanquished. Of whatever door
they pretend to have the key, they should always be asked, whether they
have the Holy Ghost, who is the arbiter and governor of the keys. If they
reply in the affirmative, they must be questioned again, whether it be
possible for the Holy Ghost to err. This they will not dare expressly to
avow, though they obliquely insinuate it in their doctrine. We may justly
infer, therefore, that no priests have the power of the keys, who, without
discrimination, frequently loose what the Lord had designed to be bound,
and bind what he had commanded to be loosed.

XXI. When they find themselves convinced, by evident experience, that they
promiscuously loose and bind the worthy and the unworthy, they arrogate to
themselves the power without knowledge. And though they dare not deny that
knowledge is requisite to a good use of it, yet they tell us, that the
power itself is committed to improper dispensers of it. But this is the
power—“Whatsoever thou bindest or loosest on earth, shall be bound or
loosed in heaven.” Either the promise of Christ must be false, or the
binding and loosing is rightly performed by those who are endued with this
power. Nor is there any room for them to quibble, that the declaration of
Christ is limited according to the merits of the person that is bound or
loosed. We also acknowledge, that none can be bound or loosed, but such as
are worthy to be bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel, and the
Church, have the word as the standard of this worthiness. In this word,
the ministers of the gospel may promise to all remission of sins in Christ
through faith; they may denounce damnation against all and upon all who
receive not Christ. In this word, the Church pronounces, that fornicators,
adulterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and extortioners, have no part in
the kingdom of God; and binds such with the firmest bonds. In the same
word, the Church looses and comforts those who repent.(1730) But what kind
of power will it be, not to know what ought to be bound or loosed? and not
to be able to bind or loose without this knowledge? Why, then, do they
say, that they absolve by the authority committed to them, when their
absolution is uncertain? Why should we concern ourselves about this
imaginary power, if it be quite useless? But I have already ascertained,
either that it has no existence, or that it is too uncertain to be
considered of any value. For, as they confess that there are many of the
priests who make no right use of the keys, and that the power has no
efficacy without a legitimate use of it, who will assure me, that he by
whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he be a bad one,
what else does he possess but this frivolous dispensation of them: “What
ought to be bound or loosed in you, I know not, since I am destitute of
the proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you?” But as
much as this might be done, I will not say by a layman, (since they could
not hear that with any patience,) but by a Turk or a devil. For it is
equivalent to saying, “I have not the word of God, which is the certain
rule of loosing; but I am invested with authority to absolve you, on
condition that your merits deserve it.” We see, then, what they intended,
when they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power
of executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good
use. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own
licentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.

XXII. If it be objected, that the legitimate ministers of Christ will be
equally perplexed in their office, since the absolution, which depends on
faith, will ever be doubtful, and that therefore sinners will have but a
slight consolation, or none at all, since the minister himself, who is not
a competent judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution,—we
are prepared with an answer. They say, that no sins are remitted by the
priest, but those which fall under his cognizance; thus, according to
them, remission depends on the judgment of the priest; and unless he
sagaciously discerns who are worthy of pardon, the whole transaction is
frivolous and useless. In short, the power of which they speak is a
jurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are
restricted. In this statement, we find no firm footing, but rather a
bottomless abyss; for where the confession is deficient, the hope of
pardon is also imperfect; in the next place, the priest himself must
necessarily remain in suspense, while he is ignorant whether the sinner
faithfully enumerates all his crimes; lastly, such is the ignorance and
inexperience of priests, that the majority of them are no more qualified
for the exercise of this office, than a shoemaker for cultivating the
ground; and almost all the rest ought justly to be suspicious of
themselves. Hence, then, the perplexity and doubtfulness of the Papal
absolution, because they maintain it to be founded on the person of the
priest; and not only so, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge
of what he hears, examines, and ascertains. Now, should any one inquire of
these good doctors, whether a sinner be reconciled to God on the remission
of part of his sins, I know not what answer they can give, without being
constrained to acknowledge the inefficacy of whatever the priest may
pronounce concerning the remission of sins which he has heard enumerated,
as long as the guilt of others still remains. What a pernicious anxiety
must oppress the conscience of the person that confesses, appears from
this consideration, that while he relies on the discretion of the priest,
(as they express themselves,) he decides nothing by the word of God. The
doctrine maintained by us, is perfectly free from all these absurdities.
For absolution is conditional, in such a way, that the sinner may be
confident that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seeks an
atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, and relies upon the grace offered to
him. Thus it is impossible for him to err, who, according to his duty as a
preacher, promulgates what he has been taught by the Divine word; and the
sinner may receive a certain and clear absolution, simply on condition of
embracing the grace of Christ, according to that general rule of our Lord
himself, which has been impiously despised among the Papists—“According to
your faith be it unto you.”(1731)

XXIII. Their absurd confusion of the clear representations of the
Scripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose in
another place; and a more suitable opportunity will present itself, in
discussing the government of the Church. But let the reader remember, that
they preposterously pervert to auricular and secret confession, passages
which are spoken by Christ, partly of the preaching of the gospel, and
partly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of
loosing was committed to the apostles, which is now exercised by the
priests in remitting the sins confessed to them, it is evidently an
assumption of a false and frivolous principle; for the absolution
consequent on faith, is nothing but a declaration of pardon taken from the
gracious promise of the gospel; but the other absolution, which depends on
ecclesiastical discipline, relates not to secret sins, but is rather for
the sake of example, that the public offence of the Church may be removed.
They rake together testimonies from every quarter, to prove, that it is
not sufficient to make a confession of sins to God, or to laymen, unless
they are likewise submitted to the cognizance of a priest; but they ought
to be ashamed of such a disgusting employment. For, if the ancient fathers
sometimes persuade sinners to disburden themselves to their own pastor, it
cannot be understood of a particular enumeration of sins, which was not
then practised. Moreover, Lombard and others of the same class have been
so unfair, that they appear to have designedly consulted spurious books,
in order to use them as a pretext to deceive the unwary. They do, indeed,
properly acknowledge, that since loosing always accompanies repentance,
there really remains no bond where any one has experienced repentance,
although he may not yet have made a confession; and, therefore, that then
the priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare them to
be remitted. Though in the word _declare_ they insinuate a gross error,
substituting a ceremony in the place of instruction; but by adding, that
he who had already obtained pardon before God, is absolved in the view of
the Church, they unseasonably apply to the particular use of every
individual, what we have already asserted to have been appointed as a part
of the common discipline of the Church, when the offence of some great and
notorious crime requires to be removed. But they presently corrupt and
destroy all the moderation they had observed, by adding another mode of
remission, that is, with an injunction of punishment and satisfaction; by
which they arrogantly ascribe to their priests the power of dividing into
two parts what God has every where promised as complete. For, as he simply
requires repentance and faith, this partition or exception is an evident
sacrilege. For it is just as if the priest, sustaining the character of a
tribune, should interpose his _veto_, and not suffer God of his mere
goodness to receive any one into favour, unless he had lain prostrate
before the tribunitial seat, and there been punished.

XXIV. The whole argument comes to this—that if they will represent God as
the author of this fictitious confession, it is a full proof of their
error; for I have pointed out their fallacies in the few passages which
they quote. But since it is evident that this is a law of human
imposition, I assert that it is also tyrannical and injurious to God, who
binds the consciences of men by his word, and whose will it is that they
should be free from the authority of men. Now, when they prescribe as a
necessary prerequisite to pardon that which God has chosen should be free,
I maintain that it is an intolerable sacrilege; for nothing is more
peculiarly the prerogative of God than the remission of sins, in which our
salvation consists. I have moreover proved, that this tyranny was not
introduced till the world was oppressed with the rudest barbarism. I have
likewise shown that it is a pestilent law, because, if wretched souls are
affected with the fear of God, it precipitates them into despair; or if
they are in a state of careless security, it soothes them with vain
flatteries, and renders them still more insensible. Lastly, I have stated,
that all the mitigations which they add, have no other tendency than to
perplex, obscure, and corrupt the pure doctrine, and to conceal their
impieties under false and illusive colours.

XXV. The third place in repentance they assign to _satisfaction_; all
their jargon concerning which may be overturned in one word. They say,
that it is not sufficient for a penitent to abstain from his former sins,
and to change his morals for the better, unless he make satisfaction to
God for the crimes which he has committed; and that there are many helps
by which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings, oblations, and works
of charity; that by these the Lord is to be propitiated, by these our
debts are to be paid to the Divine justice, by these we must compensate
for the guilt of our sins, by these we must merit pardon; for that though,
in the plenitude of his mercy, he has remitted our sins, yet, in the
discipline of justice, he retains the punishment, and that this is the
punishment which must be redeemed by _satisfactions_. All that they say,
however, comes to this conclusion—that we obtain the pardon of our
transgressions from the mercy of God, but that it is by the intervention
of the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins must be compensated,
that the Divine justice may receive the satisfaction which is due to it.
To such falsehoods I oppose the gratuitous remission of sins, than which
there is nothing more clearly revealed in the Scripture. In the first
place, what is remission, but a gift of mere liberality? For the creditor
is not said to forgive, who testifies by a receipt that the debt has been
paid, but he who, without any payment, merely through his beneficence,
voluntarily cancels the obligation. In the next place, why is this said to
be free, but to preclude every idea of satisfaction? With what confidence,
then, can they still set up their satisfactions, which are overthrown by
such a mighty thunderbolt? But when the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, “I, even
I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will
not remember thy sins,”(1732) does he not evidently declare, that he
derives the cause and foundation of forgiveness merely from his own
goodness? Besides, while the whole Scripture bears testimony to Christ,
that “remission of sins” is to be “received through his name,”(1733) does
it not exclude all other names? How, then, do they teach, that it is
received through the name of _satisfactions_? Nor can they deny that they
ascribe this to satisfactions, although they call their intervention
_subsidiary_. For when the Scripture states it to be “through the name of
Christ,” it signifies, that we bring nothing, that we plead nothing, of
our own, but rely solely on the mediation of Christ; as Paul, after
affirming, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them,” immediately adds the method and
nature of it, “for he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for
us.”(1734)

XXVI. But such is their perverseness, they reply that both remission of
sins and reconciliation are obtained at once, when in baptism we are
received into the favour of God, through Christ; that if we fall after
baptism, we are to be raised up again by _satisfactions_; and that the
blood of Christ avails us nothing, any further than it is dispensed by the
keys of the Church. I am not speaking of a doubtful point, for they have
betrayed their impurity in the most explicit terms; and this is the case
not only of two or three, but of all the schoolmen. For their master,
Lombard, after having confessed that, according to the doctrine of Peter,
Christ suffered the punishment of sins on the cross,(1735) immediately
corrects that sentiment by the addition of the following exception: that
all the temporal punishments of sins are remitted in baptism; but that
after baptism they are diminished by means of repentance, so that our
repentance coöperates with the cross of Christ. But John speaks a very
different language: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins: I
write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for
his name’s sake.”(1736) He certainly addresses believers, and when he
exhibits Christ to them as the propitiation for sins, proves that there is
no other satisfaction by which our offended God may be propitiated or
appeased. He says not, God was once reconciled to you by Christ, now seek
some other means; but represents him as a perpetual advocate, who by his
intercession restores us to the Father’s favour for ever, and as a
perpetual propitiation by which our sins are expiated. For this is
perpetually true, that was declared by the other John, “Behold the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”(1737) He takes them away
himself, I say, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God,
he alone is the oblation, the expiation, the satisfaction for sins. For
the right and power to forgive being the peculiar prerogative of the
Father, as distinguished from the Son, as we have already seen, Christ is
here represented in another capacity, since by transferring to himself the
punishment we deserved, he has obliterated our guilt before the throne of
God. Whence it follows, that we shall not be partakers of the atonement of
Christ in any other way, unless he remain in the exclusive possession of
that honour, which they unjustly assume to themselves who endeavour to
appease God by satisfactions of their own.

XXVII. And here two things demand our consideration—that the honour, which
belongs to Christ, should be preserved to him entire and undiminished; and
that consciences assured of the pardon of their sins, should have peace
with God. Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,”
and “With his stripes we are healed.”(1738) Peter, repeating the same
truth in different words, says, that Christ “bare our sins in his own body
on the tree.”(1739) Paul informs us, that “sin was condemned in the
flesh,”(1740) when “Christ was made sin for us;”(1741) that is, that the
power and curse of sin were destroyed in his flesh, when he was given as a
victim, to sustain the whole load of our sins, with their curse and
execrations, with the dreadful judgment of God, and the condemnation of
death. We cannot here listen to those foolish fictions; that after the
initial purgation or baptism, none of us can have any further experience
of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ, than in proportion to a
satisfactory repentance. But whenever we have fallen, the Scripture
recalls us to the satisfaction of Christ alone. Now, review their
pestilent follies; “that the grace of God operates alone in the first
remission of sins; but that if we afterwards fall, our works coöperate
with it in the impetration of a second pardon.” If these things be
admitted, does Christ remain exclusively possessed of what we have before
attributed to him? How immensely wide is the difference between these
positions—that our iniquities are laid on Christ to be expiated by him,
and that they are expiated by our own works! that Christ is the
propitiation for our sins, and that God must be propitiated by works! But
with respect to pacifying the conscience, what peace will it afford any
one, to hear that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? When will he be
assured of the accomplishment of satisfaction? Therefore he will always
doubt whether God be propitious to him, he will always be in a state of
fluctuation and terror. For those who content themselves with trivial
satisfactions, have too contemptuous sentiments of the judgment of God,
and reflect very little on the vast evil of sin, as we shall elsewhere
observe. But though we should allow them to expiate some sins by a proper
satisfaction, yet what will they do when they are overwhelmed with so many
sins, that to make adequate satisfactions for them, even a hundred lives
entirely devoted to it could not possibly be sufficient? Besides, all the
passages in which remission of sins is declared, are not addressed to
catechumens, [or persons not yet baptized,] but to the regenerated sons of
God, and those who have been long nurtured in the bosom of the Church.
That embassy which Paul so splendidly extols, “We pray you in Christ’s
stead, be ye reconciled to God,”(1742) is directed not to strangers, but
to those who had already been regenerated. But, dismissing all
satisfactions, he sends them to the cross of Christ. Thus, when he writes
to the Colossians, that “Christ had made peace by the blood of his cross,
and reconciled all things both in earth and in heaven,”(1743) he restricts
not this to the moment of our reception into the Church, but extends it
through our whole course; as is evident from the context, where he says
that believers “have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins.” But it is unnecessary to accumulate more passages, which are
frequently occurring.

XXVIII. Here they take refuge in a foolish distinction, that some sins are
_venial_, and some _mortal_; that a great satisfaction is due for mortal
sins; but that those which are venial are purged away by easier remedies,
by the Lord’s prayer, the aspersion of holy water, and the absolution of
the mass. Thus they sport and trifle with God. But though they are
incessantly talking of venial and mortal sins, yet they have never been
able to discriminate one from the other, except by making impiety and
impurity of heart a venial sin. But we maintain, according to the doctrine
of the Scripture, the only standard of righteousness and sin, that “the
wages of sin is death,” and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die;”(1744)
but that the sins of believers are venial, not because they are not
deserving of death, but because, through the mercy of God, “there is no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;”(1745) because they are
not imputed to them, but obliterated by a pardon. I know their unjust
calumnies against this doctrine of ours; they assert it to be the Stoical
paradox concerning the equality of sins; but they will easily be refuted
out of their own lips. For I ask, whether among those very sins which they
confess to be mortal, they do not acknowledge one to be greater or less
than another? It does not, therefore, immediately follow, that sins are
equal because they are alike mortal. Since the Scripture declares that the
wages of sin is death, that obedience to the law is the way of life, and
the transgression of it death, they cannot evade this decision. What end,
then, will they find to satisfactions in so great an accumulation of sins?
If it be the business of one day to satisfy for one sin, while they are
employed in that, they involve themselves in more; for the most righteous
man cannot pass a single day without falling several times. While they
shall be preparing themselves to make satisfaction for these, they will
accumulate a numerous, or rather an innumerable multitude. Now, all
confidence in satisfaction is cut off: on what do they depend? How do they
still presume to think of making satisfaction?

XXIX. They endeavour to extricate themselves from this difficulty, but
without success. They invent a distinction between the guilt and the
punishment; and acknowledge that the guilt is forgiven by the Divine
mercy, but maintain, that after the remission of the guilt, there still
remains the punishment, which the Divine justice requires to be suffered;
and, therefore, that satisfactions properly relate to the remission of the
punishment. What desultory levity is this! Now, they confess that
remission of guilt is proposed as gratuitous, which they are continually
teaching men to merit by prayers and tears, and other preparations of
various kinds. But every thing delivered in the Scripture concerning
remission of sins is diametrically opposite to this distinction. And
though I think I have fully established this point already, I will subjoin
some additional testimonies, by which our opponents will be so much
embarrassed, as, notwithstanding all their serpentine lubricity, to be
totally unable ever to extricate themselves. “This is the new covenant,”
which God has made with us in Christ, “that he will not remember our
iniquities.”(1746) The import of these expressions we learn from another
prophet, by whom the Lord says, “When the righteous turneth away from his
righteousness, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be
mentioned. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, he shall
surely live, he shall not die.”(1747) “Not to mention righteousness,”
signifies, not to notice it so as to reward it; and “not to remember
sins,” is, not to inflict punishment for them. This is expressed in other
passages by the following phrases: to “cast behind the back,” to “blot out
as a cloud,” to “cast into the depths of the sea,” “not to impute,” to
“cover.”(1748) These forms of expression would clearly convey to us the
sense of the Holy Spirit, if we attended to them with docility. If God
punishes sins, he certainly imputes them; if he avenges them, he remembers
them; if he cites them to judgment, he does not cover them; if he examines
them, he has not cast them behind his back; if he inspects them, he has
not blotted them out as a cloud; if he scrutinizes them, he has not cast
them into the depths of the sea. And in this manner the subject is clearly
explained by Augustine. “If God has covered sins, he would not look at
them; if he would not look at them, he would not take cognizance of them;
if he would not take cognizance of them, he would not punish them; he
would not know them, he would rather forgive them. Why, then, has he said
that sins are covered? That they might not be seen. For what is meant by
God’s seeing sin, but his punishing it?” Let us also hear from another
passage of the prophet, on what conditions God remits sins. “Though your
sins be as scarlet, (says he,) they shall be as white as snow; though they
be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”(1749) And in Jeremiah we find
this declaration: “In that time the iniquities of Israel shall be sought
for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be
found; for I will pardon them whom I reserve.”(1750) Would you briefly
know what is the meaning of these words? Consider, on the contrary, the
import of the following expressions: “the Lord seweth up iniquity in a
bag;” “iniquity is bound up;” “sin is hid;” to “write sins with a pen of
iron, and engrave them with the point of a diamond.”(1751) If they signify
that God will execute vengeance, as they undoubtedly do, neither can it be
doubted but that, by the contrary declaration, the Lord proclaims his
remission of all vindictive punishment. Here I must conjure my readers not
to listen to my expositions, but only to pay some deference to the word of
God.

XXX. What would Christ have done for us, if punishment for sins were still
inflicted on us? For when we say, that he “bare all our sins in his own
body on the tree,”(1752) we intend only, that he sustained the vindictive
punishment which was due to our sins. This sentiment is more significantly
expressed by Isaiah, when he says that the “chastisement (or correction)
of our peace was upon him.”(1753) Now, what is the correction of our
peace, but the punishment due to sins, and which we must have suffered
before we could be reconciled to God, if he had not become our substitute?
Thus we see clearly, that Christ bore the punishment of sins, that he
might deliver his people from it. And whenever Paul mentions the
redemption accomplished by him, he generally calls it ἀπολυτρωσις,(1754)
which signifies not simply redemption, as it is commonly understood, but
the price and satisfaction of redemption. Thus he says that Christ “gave
himself a ransom” (αντιλυτρον) for us.(1755) “What propitiation is there
with the Lord (says Augustine) but sacrifice? And what sacrifice is there,
but that which has been offered for us in the death of Christ?” But the
institutions of the law of Moses, respecting expiations for sins, furnish
us with a most powerful argument. For there the Lord prescribes not this
or the other method of satisfying, but requires the whole compensation in
sacrifices; though he specifies all the rites of expiation with the most
particular care, and in the most exact order. How is it that he commands
the expiation of sins without any works at all, requiring no other
atonement than by sacrifices, but because he intends in this way to
declare, that there is only one kind of satisfaction by which his justice
is appeased? For the sacrifices then immolated by the Israelites were not
considered as the works of men, but were estimated according to their
antitype, that is, the one sacrifice of Christ alone. The nature of the
compensation which the Lord receives from us is concisely and beautifully
expressed by Hosea: “Take away (saith he) all iniquity, O Lord;” here is
remission of sins; “so will we render the calves of our lips;”(1756) here
is satisfaction, [which is no other than thanksgiving.] I am aware of
another still more subtle evasion to which they resort, by distinguishing
between eternal punishments and those which are temporal. But when they
assert that temporal punishment is any suffering inflicted by God on the
body or the soul, eternal death only excepted, this limitation affords
them but little assistance. For the passages which we have cited above,
expressly signify, that God receives us into favour on this condition,
that in forgiving our guilt, he remits all the punishment that we had
deserved. And whenever David or the other prophets implore the pardon of
their sins, they at the same time deprecate the punishment; and to this
they are impelled by an apprehension of the Divine judgment. Again: when
they promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always professedly speak of
punishments, and of the remission of them. Certainly when the Lord
announces by Ezekiel, that he will put an end to the Babylonian captivity,
and that for his own sake, not for the sake of the Jews, he sufficiently
shows this deliverance to be gratuitous. Finally, if Christ delivers us
from guilt, the punishments consequent upon it must necessarily cease.

XXXI. But as our adversaries also, on their part, arm themselves with
testimonies from the Scripture, let us examine what arguments they offer.
They reason in this way: David, after having been reproved by Nathan the
prophet for adultery and murder, receives the pardon of his sin; and yet
is afterwards punished by the death of the son that was the fruit of his
adultery.(1757) We are taught to compensate by satisfactions for such
punishments as would be inflicted even after the remission of the guilt.
For Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to atone for his sins by acts of
mercy.(1758) And Solomon says, “By mercy and truth, iniquity is
purged.”(1759) And that “charity shall cover a multitude of sins,”(1760)
is a sentiment confirmed by the united testimony of Solomon and Peter. The
Lord also says in Luke, concerning the woman that had been a sinner, “Her
sins are forgiven; for she loved much.”(1761) How perversely and
preposterously they always estimate the Divine proceedings! But if they
had observed, what should by no means have been overlooked, that there are
two kinds of Divine judgment, they would have seen, in this correction of
David, a species of punishment very different from that which may be
considered as vindictive. But since it highly concerns us all to
understand the design of those chastisements with which God corrects our
sins, and how greatly they differ from the examples of his indignation
pursuing the impious and reprobate, I conceive it will not be unseasonable
to give a summary account of them. For the sake of perspicuity, let us
call one _vengeance_, or _vindictive judgment_, and the other
_chastisement_, or _disciplinary judgment_. In vindictive judgment, God is
to be contemplated as taking vengeance on his enemies, so as to exert his
wrath against them, to confound, dissipate, and reduce them to nothing. We
consider it, therefore, strictly speaking, to be the vengeance of God,
when the punishment he inflicts is attended with his indignation. In
disciplinary judgment, he is not so severe as to be angry; nor does he
punish in order to destroy or precipitate into perdition. Wherefore, it is
not properly punishment or vengeance, but correction and admonition. The
former is the part of a judge, the latter of a father. For a judge, when
he punishes an offender, attends to the crime itself, and inflicts
punishment according to the nature and aggravations of it. When a father
corrects his child with severity, he does it not to take vengeance or
satisfaction, but rather to teach him, and render him more cautious for
the future. Chrysostom somewhere uses a comparison a little different,
which, nevertheless, comes to the same point. “A son (says he) is beaten;
a servant also is beaten; but the latter is punished as a slave, because
he has transgressed; the former is chastised as free and a son, that needs
to be disciplined.” Correction serves to the latter for a probation and
reformation, to the former for a scourge and a punishment.

XXXII. To obtain a clear view of the whole subject in a small compass, it
is necessary to state two distinctions respecting it. The first is, that
wherever there is vindictive punishment, there also is a manifestation of
the curse and wrath of God, which he always withholds from believers.
Chastisement, on the contrary, is, as the Scripture teaches us, both a
blessing of God, and a testimony of his love. This difference is
sufficiently marked in every part of the Divine word. For all the
afflictions which the impious endure in the present life, are represented
to us as constituting a kind of antechamber of hell, whence they already
have a distant prospect of their eternal damnation; and they are so far
from being reformed, or receiving any benefit from this, that they are
rather prepared by such preludes for that most tremendous vengeance which
finally awaits them. On the contrary, the Lord repeatedly chastises his
servants, yet does not deliver them over to death;(1762) wherefore they
confess that the strokes of his rod were highly beneficial and instructive
to them. As we every where find that the saints bore these corrections
with resignation of soul, so they always earnestly deprecated punishments
of the former kind. Jeremiah says, “O Lord, correct me, but with judgment;
not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Pour out thy fury upon
the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not upon
thy name.”(1763) And David: “O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither
chasten me in thy hot displeasure.”(1764) Nor is it any objection to this,
that the Lord is frequently said to be angry with his saints, when he
chastises them for their sins. As in Isaiah: “O Lord, I will praise thee;
though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou
comfortedst me.”(1765) Habakkuk also: “In wrath remember mercy.”(1766) And
Micah: “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned
against him.”(1767) Which reminds us, not only that those who are justly
punished, receive no advantage from murmuring, but that the faithful
derive a mitigation of their sorrow from a consideration of the intention
of God. For on the same account he is said to profane his own inheritance,
which, however, we know, he never will profane.(1768) That relates not to
the design or disposition of God in punishing, but to the vehement sense
of sorrow experienced by those who suffer any of his severity. He not only
distresses his believing people with no small degree of rigour, but
sometimes wounds them in such a manner, that they seem to themselves to be
on the brink of infernal destruction. Thus he declares, that they have
deserved his wrath; and this in order that they may be displeased with
themselves in their distresses, may be influenced by a greater concern to
appease God, and may hasten with solicitude to implore his pardon; but in
this very procedure he exhibits a brighter testimony of his clemency than
of his wrath. The covenant still remains which was made with us in our
true Solomon, and the validity of which he, who cannot deceive, has
declared shall never be diminished: “If his children forsake my law, and
walk not in my commandments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my
commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and
their iniquities with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving‐kindness will I not
utterly take from him.”(1769) To assure us of this loving‐kindness, he
says, that the rod with which he will chastise the posterity of Solomon,
and the stripes he will inflict on them, will be “the rod of men, and the
stripes of the children of men.”(1770) While by these phrases he signifies
moderation and lenity, he also implies that those who feel his hand
exerted against them cannot but be confounded with an extreme and deadly
horror. How much he observes this lenity in chastising his Israel, he
shows by the prophet: “I have refined thee, (says he,) but not with
silver;(1771) for thou wouldst have been wholly consumed.” Though he
teaches him that chastisements serve to purify him, yet he adds that he so
far moderates them, that they may not exceed what he is able to bear. And
this is highly necessary; for the more a man reveres God and devotes
himself to the cultivation of piety, he is so much the more tender to bear
his wrath. For though the reprobate groan under his scourges, yet because
they consider not the cause, but rather turn their backs both on their
sins and on the Divine judgments, from this carelessness they contract an
insensibility; or because they murmur and resist, and rebel against their
judge, that furious impetuosity stupefies them with madness and rage. But
believers, admonished by the Divine corrections, immediately descend to
the consideration of their sins, and, stricken with fear and dread, resort
to a suppliant deprecation of punishment. If God did not mitigate these
sorrows, with which wretched souls torment themselves, they would be
continually fainting, even under slight tokens of his wrath.

XXXIII. The second distinction is, that when the reprobate are lashed by
the scourges of God in this world, they already begin to suffer his
vindictive punishments; and though they will not escape with impunity for
having disregarded such indications of the Divine wrath, yet they are not
punished in order to their repentance, but only that, from their great
misery, they may prove God to be a judge who will inflict vengeance
according to their crimes. On the contrary, the children of God are
chastised, not to make satisfaction to him for their sins, but that they
may thereby be benefited and brought to repentance. Wherefore we see, that
such chastisements relate to the future rather than the past. To express
this, I would prefer Chrysostom’s language to my own. “For this reason
(says he) God punishes us, not to take vengeance for our sins, but to
correct us for the future.” Thus also Augustine: “That which you suffer,
and which causes you to mourn, is a medicine to you, not a punishment; a
chastisement, and not damnation. Reject not the scourge, if you desire not
to be rejected from the inheritance. All this misery of mankind, under
which the world groans, know, brethren, that it is a medicinal sorrow, not
a penal sentence.” These passages I have therefore thought proper to
quote, that no one might consider the phraseology which I have adopted to
be novel or unusual. And to the same purpose are the indignant complaints
in which the Lord frequently expostulates on account of the ingratitude of
the people, and their obstinate contempt of all their punishments. In
Isaiah: “Why should ye be stricken any more? From the sole of the foot
even unto the head there is no soundness.”(1772) But as the prophets
abound in such passages, it will be sufficient briefly to have suggested,
that God punishes his Church with no other design than to subdue it to
repentance. Therefore, when he rejected Saul from the kingdom, he punished
him in a vindictive manner;(1773) when he deprived David of his infant
son, he corrected him in order to his reformation.(1774) In this sense we
must understand the observation of Paul: “When we are judged, we are
chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the
world.”(1775) That is, when we, the children of God, are afflicted by the
hand of our heavenly Father, this is not a punishment to confound us, but
only a chastisement to instruct us. In which Augustine evidently coincides
with us; for he teaches that the punishments with which men are equally
chastised by God, are to be considered in different points of view;
because to the saints, after the remission of their sins, they are
conflicts and exercises, but to the reprobate, whose sins are not
forgiven, they are the penalties due to their iniquity. He also mentions
the punishments inflicted on David and other pious persons, and says, that
those chastisements tended to promote their humility, and thereby to
exercise and prove their piety. And the declaration of Isaiah, that
Jerusalem’s “iniquity is pardoned, for she hath received of the Lord’s
hand double for all her sins,”(1776) proves not the pardon of
transgressions to depend on the suffering of the punishment, but is just
as though he had said, “Punishments enough have now been inflicted on you;
and as the severity and multitude of them have harassed you with a long
continuance of grief and sorrow, it is time for you to receive the message
of complete mercy, that your hearts may be expanded with joy, and
experience me to be your Father.” For God there assumes the character of a
Father, who repents even of his righteous severity, when he has been
constrained to chastise his son with any degree of rigour.

XXXIV. It is necessary that the faithful should be provided with these
reflections in the anguish of afflictions. “The time is come that judgment
must begin at the house of God, upon which his name is called.”(1777) What
would the children of God do, if they believed the severity which they
feel to be the vengeance of God upon them? For he who, under the strokes
of the Divine hand, considers God as an avenging Judge, cannot but
conceive of Him as incensed against him, and hostile to him, and will
therefore detest his scourge itself as a curse and condemnation; in a
word, he who thinks that God is still determined to punish him, can never
be persuaded to believe himself an object of the Divine love. The only one
who receives any benefit from the Divine chastisements, is he who
considers God as angry with his crimes, but propitious and benevolent
towards his person. For otherwise the case must necessarily be similar to
what the Psalmist complains of having experienced: “Thy fierce wrath goeth
over me; thy terrors have cut me off.”(1778) And what Moses also speaks
of: “For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.
Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of
thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend
our years as a tale that is told.”(1779) On the contrary, David, speaking
of his paternal chastisements, in order to show that believers are rather
assisted than oppressed by them, sings: “Blessed is the man whom thou
chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law; that thou mayest give
him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the
wicked.”(1780) It is certainly a severe temptation, when the Lord spares
unbelievers, and conceals their crimes, while he appears more rigorous
towards his own children. For their consolation, therefore, he adds the
admonition of the law, whence they may learn, that it is for the promotion
of their salvation when they are recalled into the way, but that the
impious are precipitated into their errors, which end in the pit. Nor is
it of any importance whether the punishment be eternal or temporal. For
wars, famines, plagues, and diseases are curses from God, as well as the
judgment of eternal death itself, when they are inflicted as the
instruments of the Lord’s wrath and vengeance against the reprobate.

XXXV. Every one, I presume, now perceives the design of the Lord’s
correction of David, that it was to be a proof of God’s extreme
displeasure against murder and adultery, with which he declared himself to
be so greatly offended in his beloved and faithful servant, and to teach
David never again to be guilty of such crimes; but not as a punishment, by
which he was to render God a satisfaction for his offence. And we ought to
form the same judgment concerning the other correction, in which the Lord
afflicted the people with a violent pestilence, on account of the
disobedience of David in numbering them. For he freely forgave David the
guilt of his sin; but because it was necessary, as a public example to all
ages, and also to the humiliation of David, that such an offence should
not remain unpunished, he chastised him with extreme severity. This end we
should keep in view also in the universal curse of mankind. For since we
all, even after having obtained pardon, still suffer the miseries which
were inflicted on our first parent as the punishment of sin, we consider
such afflictions as admonitions how grievously God is displeased with the
transgression of his law; that being thus dejected and humbled with a
consciousness of our miserable condition, we may aspire with greater
ardour after true blessedness. Now, he is very unwise, who imagines that
the calamities of the present life are inflicted upon us as satisfactions
for the guilt of sin. This appears to me to have been the meaning of
Chrysostom, when he said, “If God therefore inflicts punishments on us,
that while we are persisting in sins he may call us to repentance,—after a
discovery of repentance, the punishment will be unnecessary.” Wherefore he
treats one person with greater severity, and another with more tender
indulgence, as he knows to be suitable to every man’s particular
disposition. Therefore, when he means to suggest that he is not
excessively severe in the infliction of punishment, he reproaches an
obdurate and obstinate people, that though they have been corrected, they
have not forsaken their sins.(1781) In this sense he complains, that
“Ephraim is a cake not turned,”(1782) that is, scorched on one side,
unbaked on the other; because his corrections did not penetrate the hearts
of the people, so as to expel their vices and render them proper objects
of pardon. By expressing himself in this manner, he certainly gives us to
understand, that as soon as they shall have repented, he will be
immediately appeased, and that the rigour which he exercises in chastising
offences is extorted from him by our obstinacy, but would be prevented by
a voluntary reformation. Yet since our obduracy and ignorance are such as
universally to need castigation, our most wise Father is pleased to
exercise all his children, without exception, with the strokes of his rod,
as long as they live. It is astonishing why they fix their eyes thus on
the example of David alone, and are unaffected by so many instances in
which they might behold a gratuitous remission of sins. The publican is
said to have gone down from the temple justified;(1783) no punishment
follows. Peter obtained the pardon of his sins. “We read,” says Ambrose,
“of his tears, but not of his satisfaction.”(1784) And a paralytic hears
the following address: “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven
thee;”(1785) no punishment is inflicted. All the absolutions which are
mentioned in the Scripture, are described as gratuitous. A general rule
ought rather to be deduced from these numerous examples, than from that
single case which is attended with peculiar circumstances.

XXXVI. When Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to “break off his sins by
righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor,”(1786) he
meant not to intimate that righteousness and mercy propitiate God and
atone for sins; for God forbid that there should ever be any other
redemption than the blood of Christ. But he used the term _break off_ with
reference to men, rather than to God; as though he had said, “Thou hast
exercised, O king, an unrighteous and violent despotism; thou hast
oppressed the weak; thou hast plundered the poor; thou hast treated thy
people with harshness and iniquity; instead of unjust exactions, instead
of violence and oppression, now substitute mercy and righteousness.” In a
similar sense Solomon says, that “love covereth all sins;” not with
reference to God, but among men. For the whole verse is as follows:
“Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins.”(1787) In which
verse, he, according to his usual custom, contrasts the evils arising from
hatred with the fruits of love; signifying, that they who hate each other,
reciprocally harass, criminate, reproach, revile, and convert every thing
into a fault; but that they who love one another, mutually conceal,
connive at, and reciprocally forgive, many things among themselves; not
that they approve each other’s faults, but bear with them, and heal them
by admonition, rather than aggravate them by invectives. Nor can we doubt
that Peter intended the same in his citation of this passage,(1788) unless
we mean to accuse him of corrupting, and craftily perverting the
Scriptures. When Solomon says, that “by mercy and truth iniquity is
purged,”(1789) he intends not a compensation in the Divine view, so that
God, being appeased with such a satisfaction, remits the punishment which
he would otherwise have inflicted; but, in the familiar manner of
Scripture, he signifies, that they shall find him propitious to them who
have forsaken their former vices and iniquities, and are converted to him
in piety and truth; as though he had said, that the wrath of God subsides,
and his judgment ceases, when we cease from our sins. He describes not the
cause of pardon, but the mode of true conversion. Just as the prophets
frequently declare that it is in vain for hypocrites to offer to God
ostentatious ceremonies instead of repentance, since he is only pleased
with integrity and the duties of charity; and as the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, when he recommends us “to do good and to communicate,”
informs us that “with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”(1790) And when
Christ ridicules the Pharisees for having attended only to the cleansing
of dishes, and neglected all purity of heart, and commands them to give
alms that all might be clean,(1791) he is not exhorting them to make a
satisfaction, but only teaching them what kind of purity obtains the
Divine approbation. But of this expression we have treated in another
work.(1792)

XXXVII. With respect to the passage of Luke,(1793) no one, who has read
with a sound judgment the parable the Lord there proposes, will enter into
any controversy with us concerning it. The Pharisee thought within
himself, that the Lord did not know the woman, whom he had so easily
admitted to his presence. For he imagined that Christ would not have
admitted her, if he had known what kind of a sinner she was. And thence he
inferred that Christ, who was capable of being so deceived, was not a
prophet. To show that she was not a sinner, her sins having already been
forgiven, the Lord proposed this parable: “There was a certain creditor,
which had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, and the other
fifty. He frankly forgave them both. Which of them will love him most?”
The Pharisee answered, “He to whom he forgave most.” The Lord rejoins,
Hence know that “this woman’s sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she
loved much.” In these words, you see, he makes her love, not the cause of
the remission of her sins, but the proof of it. For they are taken from a
comparison of that debtor to whom five hundred pence had been forgiven, of
whom it is said, not that his debt was forgiven, because he had loved
much, but that he loved much because his debt had been forgiven. And this
similitude may be applied to the case of the woman in the following
manner: “You suppose this woman to be a sinner; but you ought to know that
she is not such, since her sins are forgiven her. And her love ought to
convince you of the remission of her sins, by the grateful return she
makes for this blessing.” It is an argumentum _a posteriori_, by which any
thing is proved from its consequences. By what means she obtained
remission of sins, the Lord plainly declares: “Thy faith,” says he, “hath
saved thee.” By faith therefore we obtain remission, by love we give
thanks and declare the goodness of the Lord.

XXXVIII. To those things which frequently occur in the works of the
fathers concerning _satisfaction_, I pay little regard. I see, indeed,
that some of them, or, to speak plainly, almost all whose writings are
extant, have either erred on this point, or expressed themselves too
harshly. But I shall not admit that they were so ignorant and
inexperienced, as to write those things in the sense in which they are
understood by the modern advocates for satisfaction. Chrysostom somewhere
expresses himself thus: “Where mercy is requested, examination ceases;
where mercy is implored, judgment is not severe; where mercy is sought,
there is no room for punishment; where there is mercy, there is no
inquiry; where mercy is, an answer is freely given.” These expressions,
however they may be distorted, can never be reconciled with the dogmas of
the schools. In the treatise On Ecclesiastical Doctrines, which is
ascribed to Augustine, we read the following passage: “The satisfaction of
repentance is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to indulge an
entrance to their suggestions.” Whence it appears, that even in those
times the doctrine of satisfaction, as a compensation for sins committed,
was universally rejected, since he refers all satisfaction to a cautious
abstinence from sins in future. I will not quote what is further asserted
by Chrysostom, that the Lord requires of us nothing more than to confess
our sins before him with tears; for passages of this kind frequently occur
in his writings, and in those of other fathers. Augustine somewhere calls
works of mercy “remedies for obtaining remission of sins;” but lest any
one should stumble at that expression, he explains himself more fully in
another place. “The flesh of Christ,” says he, “is the true and sole
sacrifice for sins, not only for those which are all obliterated in
baptism, but also for those which afterwards creep in through infirmity;
on account of which the whole Church at present exclaims, Forgive us our
debts;(1794) and they are forgiven through that single sacrifice.”

XXXIX. But they most commonly used the word “satisfaction” to signify, not
a compensation rendered to God, but a public testification, by which those
who had been punished with excommunication, when they wished to be
readmitted to communion, gave the Church an assurance of their repentance.
For there were enjoined on those penitents certain fastings, and other
observances, by which they might prove themselves truly and cordially
weary of their former life, or rather obliterate the memory of their past
actions; and thus they were said to make satisfaction, not to God, but to
the Church. This is also expressed by Augustine in these very words, in
his Enchiridion ad Laurentium. From that ancient custom have originated
the confessions and satisfactions which are used in the present age; a
viperous brood which retain not even the shadow of that original form. I
know that the fathers sometimes express themselves rather harshly; nor do
I deny, what I have just asserted, that perhaps they have erred. But their
writings, which were only besprinkled with a few spots, after they have
been handled by such foul hands, became thoroughly soiled. And if we must
contend with the authority of fathers, what fathers do they obtrude upon
us? Most of those passages, of which Lombard, their champion, has compiled
his heterogeneous collection, are extracted from the insipid reveries of
some monks, which are circulated under the names of Ambrose, Jerome,
Augustine, and Chrysostom. Thus, on the present argument, he borrows
almost every thing from a Treatise on Repentance, which is a ridiculous
selection from various authors, good and bad; it bears the name of
Augustine indeed, but no man even of moderate learning can deign to admit
it as really his. For not entering into a more particular examination of
their absurdities, I request the pardon of the reader, whom I wish to
spare that trouble. It would be both easy and plausible for me to expose
to the greatest contempt, what they have heretofore celebrated as
mysteries; but I forbear, as my object is to write what may tend to
edification.

Chapter V. Indulgences And Purgatory. The Supplements To Their Doctrine Of
Satisfactions.

This doctrine of _satisfaction_ has given rise to _indulgences_. For by
indulgences they pretend, that the deficiency of our abilities to make
satisfaction is supplied, and even proceed to the extravagance of defining
them to be the dispensation of the merits of Christ and of the martyrs,
which the Pope distributes in his bulls. Now, though such persons are
fitter subjects for a mad‐house than for arguments, so that it would be of
little use to engage in refuting errors so frivolous, which have been
shaken by many attacks, and begin of themselves to grow obsolete, and
totter towards a fall, yet, as a brief refutation will be useful to some
minds hitherto uninformed on the subject, I shall not altogether omit it.
And indeed the establishment and long continuance of indulgences, with the
unlimited influence retained by them amidst such outrageous and furious
licentiousness, may serve to convince us in what a deep night of errors
men were immersed for several ages. They saw, that they were themselves
objects of the public and undissembled ridicule of the Pope and the
dispensers of his bulls; that lucrative bargains were made concerning the
salvation of their souls; that the price of salvation was fixed at a
trifling sum of money, and nothing presented gratuitously; that under this
pretext, contributions were extorted from them, which were vilely consumed
on brothels, pimps, and revellings; that the greatest advocates of
indulgences were the greatest despisers of them; that this monster was
daily making longer strides in licentious power and luxury, and that there
was no end, that more trash was continually produced, and more money
continually extorted. Yet they received indulgences with the greatest
veneration, adored them and purchased them; and those who had more
discernment than others, yet considered them as pious frauds, by which
they might be deceived with some advantage. At length, since the world has
permitted itself to recover a little the exercise of reason, indulgences
become more and more discredited, till they altogether disappear.

II. But since many, who see the pollution, imposture, robbery, and
rapacity, with which the dispensers of indulgences have hitherto amused
themselves and cajoled us, do not perceive the fountain of all this
impiety,—it will be necessary to show, not only the nature of indulgences
as commonly used, but what they are in themselves when abstracted from
every adventitious blemish. The merits of Christ and of the holy apostles
and martyrs, they style “the treasury of the Church.” The principal
custody of this repository they pretend to have been delivered, as I have
already hinted, to the bishop of Rome, who has the dispensation of such
great benefits, so that he can both bestow them himself, and delegate the
power of bestowing them to others. Hence from the Pope are received
sometimes plenary indulgences, sometimes indulgences for a certain number
of years; from Cardinals, for a hundred days; from Bishops, for forty
days. But to describe them correctly, they are a profanation of the blood
of Christ and a delusion of Satan, by which they seduce Christians from
the grace of God and the life which is in Christ, and turn them aside from
the right way of salvation. For how could the blood of Christ be more
basely profaned, than when it is denied to be sufficient for the remission
of sins, for reconciliation and satisfaction, unless its deficiency be
supplied from some other quarter? “To him,” says Peter, “give all the
prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall
receive remission of sins.”(1795) Indulgences dispense remission of sins
through Peter, and Paul, and the martyrs. “The blood of Jesus Christ,”
says John, “cleanseth us from all sin.”(1796) Indulgences make the blood
of the martyrs the ablution of sins. Paul says, that Christ, “who knew no
sin, was made sin for us;” that is, a satisfaction for sin, “that we might
be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1797) Indulgences place
satisfaction for sins in the blood of the martyrs. Paul declared to the
Corinthians, that Christ alone was crucified and died for them.(1798)
Indulgences pronounce that Paul and others died for us. In another place
he says, that Christ “hath purchased the Church with his own blood.”(1799)
Indulgences assign another price of this purchase, in the blood of the
martyrs. The apostle says, that “by one offering Christ hath perfected for
ever them that are sanctified.”(1800) Indulgences, on the contrary,
proclaim that sanctification, which were otherwise insufficient, receives
its perfection from the martyrs. John declares that all saints “have
washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”(1801) Indulgences teach us
to wash our robes in the blood of the saints.

III. Leo, bishop of Rome, excellently opposes these sacrilegious
pretensions in his epistle to the Bishops of Palestine. “Although the
death of many saints,” he says, “has been precious in the sight of the
Lord, yet the murder of no innocent person has been the propitiation of
the world. The righteous have received, not bestowed, crowns; and from the
fortitude of the faithful have arisen examples of patience, not gifts of
righteousness. For their deaths have been all singular, nor has any one by
his death discharged the debt of another; for it is the Lord Christ alone,
in whom all are crucified, dead, buried, and raised from the dead.” This
passage being worthy of remembrance, he repeats it in another place.
Surely nothing clearer can be desired, in confutation of this impious
doctrine of indulgences. And Augustine expresses himself with equal
propriety to the same purpose. He says, “Although we die, brethren for
brethren, yet the blood of no martyr is ever shed for the remission of
sins. Christ has done this for us; and in doing it has not given an
example in which we should imitate him, but conferred a favour for which
we should thank him.” Again, in another place: “As the Son of God alone
became the Son of man, to make us with himself sons of God, so he alone,
without any demerits, sustained the punishment for us, that we, without
any merits, might through him obtain undeserved grace.” Indeed, whilst
their whole doctrine is a compound of horrible sacrilege and blasphemies,
yet this is a blasphemy more monstrous than the rest. Let them acknowledge
whether these be not their opinions, that the martyrs have by their death
performed for God, and merited from him, more than was necessary for
themselves; that they had so great a redundance of merits, as to
superabound to others; that therefore, lest so great a blessing should be
superfluous, their blood is commingled with the blood of Christ, and that
of both these is formed the treasury of the Church for the remission and
expiation of sins; and that in this sense we ought to understand the
declaration of Paul, “I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of
Christ in my flesh, for his body’s sake, which is the Church.”(1802) What
is this but leaving Christ a mere name, and in other respects making him
an inferior saint of the common order, scarcely distinguishable among the
multitude? He alone ought to have been preached, he alone exhibited, he
alone mentioned, he alone regarded, in all discourses on the procurement
of remission of sins, expiation, and sanctification. But let us hear their
grand argument: That the blood of the martyrs may not be shed in vain, let
it be applied to the common benefit of the Church. Indeed? Was it no
advantage to glorify God by their death? to subscribe to his truth with
their blood? to testify by their contempt of the present life, that they
sought a better one? by their constancy, to confirm the faith of the
Church, and vanquish the obstinacy of their enemies? But this is the fact:
they acknowledge no benefit, if Christ alone be the propitiator, if he
alone died for our sins, if he alone was offered for our redemption. Peter
and Paul, they say, might nevertheless have obtained the crown of victory,
if they had expired in their beds. But since they contended even to blood,
it would be incompatible with the justice of God to leave this _barren_ or
_unfruitful_. As if God knew not how to augment the glory of his servants
according to the extent of his gifts. But the Church in general receives
an advantage sufficiently great, when by their triumphs it is inflamed
with the same zeal for similar exertions and conflicts.

IV. But how maliciously they pervert that passage of Paul, where he says,
“that he fills up in his own flesh that which is behind of the afflictions
of Christ!”(1803) For he refers that deficiency and supplement, not to the
work of redemption, satisfaction, or expiation, but to those afflictions,
with which the members of Christ, even all the faithful, must necessarily
be exercised as long as they live in the present state. He says,
therefore, that this remains of the afflictions of Christ, that having
once suffered in himself, he daily suffers in his members. Christ honors
us so far as to consider our afflictions as his. When Paul adds that he
suffered “for the Church,” he means not for the redemption,
reconciliation, or atonement of the Church, but for its edification and
profit. As in another place he says, “I endure all things for the elect’s
sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ
Jesus.”(1804) He writes to the Corinthians, that whatever tribulations he
endured, he was “afflicted for their consolation and salvation.”(1805) And
he immediately proceeds to explain himself, by adding, that he was made a
minister of the Church, not for its redemption, but according to the
dispensation which had been committed to him, to preach the gospel of
Christ.(1806) But if they require also another expositor, let them attend
to Augustine: “The sufferings of Christ,” says he, “are in Christ alone,
as in the head; in Christ and the Church, as in the whole body. Whence
Paul, one of the members, says, I fill up in my flesh that which is behind
of the afflictions of Christ. If you, therefore, whoever you are that read
this, are one of the members of Christ, all that you suffer from such as
are not members of Christ, was behind in the afflictions of Christ.” But
the tendency of the sufferings of the apostles, sustained on account of
the Church, is stated by him in another place: “Christ is my door to you;
because you are the sheep of Christ, purchased with his blood: acknowledge
your price, which is not given by me, but preached by me.” Then he adds,
“As he has laid down his life, so we ought also to lay down our lives for
the brethren, for the establishment of peace and the confirmation of
faith.” This is the language of Augustine. But let it not be imagined,
that Paul thought there was any deficiency in the sufferings of Christ,
with respect to all the plenitude of righteousness, salvation, and life;
or that any addition to them was intended by him, who so clearly and
magnificently proclaims, that the “abundance of grace by Christ” was
poured forth with such liberality, that it “much more abounded” beyond all
the aboundings of sin.(1807) It is not by the merit of their own life or
death, but by this grace alone, that all the saints have been saved, as
Peter expressly testifies;(1808) so that he would be guilty of an
injurious contempt of God and of his Christ, who should place the
worthiness of any saint in any thing else but the mere mercy of God. But
why do I dwell any longer on this subject, as though it were still
involved in obscurity? whereas the statement of such monstrous notions is
of itself a complete refutation of them.

V. Now, to pass from such abominations, who taught the Pope to enclose in
lead and parchment the grace of Jesus Christ, which the Lord designed to
be dispensed by the word of the gospel? Either the gospel of God must be
false, or their indulgences fallacious. For that Christ is offered to us
in the gospel, with all his plenitude of heavenly blessings, with all his
merits, with all his righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without any
exception, is testified by Paul, when he says, “God hath committed unto us
the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as
though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye
reconciled to God. For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for
us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1809) And
believers know the meaning of that “fellowship of Christ,”(1810) which,
according to the testimony of the same apostle, is offered to our
enjoyment in the gospel. Indulgences, on the contrary, produce a certain
allowance of grace from the Pope’s repository, fix it to lead and
parchment, and even to a particular place, and separate it from the word
of God. Now, if any one inquire the origin of this abuse, it seems to have
arisen from an ancient custom, that when more severe satisfactions were
imposed on penitents than could possibly be borne by all, they who felt
themselves oppressed beyond measure, petitioned the Church for some
relaxation of rigour. The remission granted to such persons was called
indulgence. But when they transferred satisfactions to God, and said that
they were compensations, by which men might redeem themselves from the
judgment of God, they also converted these indulgences into expiatory
remedies, to deliver us from deserved punishments. But the blasphemies
which we have mentioned have been fabricated with such consummate
impudence, that they have not even the least appearance of plausibility.

VI. Nor let them now trouble us any more about their purgatory, since it
is utterly demolished by this argument. For I cannot coincide with some,
who think it best to be silent on this point, and to omit the mention of
purgatory, from which, they say, many sharp contentions arise, but very
little edification results. Indeed, I should myself be of opinion that
such trifles are unworthy of notice, if they did not consider them as
matters of importance. But since purgatory has been erected with a
multitude of blasphemies, and is daily propped by new ones, and since it
excites many and grievous offences, it really must not pass without
notice. It might be possible for a time to conceal that it was a fiction
of curious and presumptuous temerity, unsupported by the word of God; that
it was accredited by I know not what revelation invented by the subtlety
of Satan; that for its confirmation some passages of Scripture were
absurdly perverted. The Lord, however, suffers not human presumption thus
violently to break into the hidden recesses of his judgment;(1811) and has
severely prohibited the neglect of his word and the inquiry after truth
among the dead; and does not permit his word to be thus irreverently
dishonoured. Nevertheless, admitting that all these things might for a
short time have been tolerated as matters of small importance, yet when
expiation of sins is sought any where but in the blood of Christ, when
satisfaction is transferred to any other, silence becomes dangerous in the
extreme. Therefore we should exclaim with all our might, that purgatory is
a pernicious fiction of Satan, that it makes void the cross of Christ,
that it intolerably insults the Divine mercy, and weakens and overturns
our faith. For what is their purgatory, but a satisfaction for sins paid
after death by the souls of the deceased? Thus the notion of satisfaction
being overthrown, purgatory itself is immediately subverted from its very
foundations. But if it has been fully evinced, that the blood of Christ is
the only satisfaction, expiation, and purgation for the sins of the
faithful, what is the necessary inference, but that purgatory is nothing
but a horrible blasphemy against Christ? I pass by the sacrilegious
pretences with which it is daily defended, the offences which it produces
in religion, and the other innumerable evils which we perceive to have
proceeded from such a source of impiety.

VII. It is worth while, however, to wrest out of their hands those
passages of Scripture, which they have falsely and corruptly pressed into
their service. The assertion of the Lord, that the sin against the Holy
Ghost “shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world
to come,”(1812) implies, they say, that there is a forgiveness of some
sins in the world to come. But who does not see, that the Lord there
speaks of the guilt of sin? And if this be the case, what has it to do
with their purgatory, for there they suppose punishment to be inflicted
for sins, the guilt of which they do not deny to have been forgiven in the
present life? But to prevent all further cavils, they shall have a plainer
answer. When the Lord intended to cut off from such flagitious iniquity
all hope of pardon, he thought it not sufficient to say that it should
never be forgiven; but for the sake of further amplification he adopted a
distinction, comprehending both the judgment which the conscience of every
individual feels in this life, and that final judgment which will be
publicly held at the resurrection; as though he had said, “Beware of
malicious rebellion, as of immediate perdition; for he who shall have
purposely endeavoured to extinguish the offered light of the Spirit, shall
never obtain pardon, neither in this life, which is allotted to sinners
for their conversion, nor in the last day, when the lambs shall be
separated from the goats by the angels of God, and the kingdom of heaven
shall be purged from every offence.” They next adduce this parable from
Matthew: “Agree with thine adversary; lest at any time the adversary
deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and
thou be cast into prison. Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till
thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”(1813) If in this place the judge
signify God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, the prison
purgatory, I will readily submit to them. But if it be evident to every
one, that Christ there intended to show to how many dangers and calamities
persons exposed themselves, who prefer obstinately exerting the rigour of
the law, to acting upon the principles of equity and kindness, in order
the more earnestly to exhort his disciples to an equitable concord, pray
where will purgatory be found?

VIII. They derive an argument from the language of Paul, where he has
affirmed, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.”(1814) For they
assume it as granted, that “things (or persons) under the earth” cannot be
understood of those who are consigned to eternal damnation. It follows,
therefore, that they must be the souls suffering in purgatory. Their
reasoning would not be very bad, if, by genuflection, the apostle designed
truly pious worship; but since he simply teaches, that dominion is
committed to Christ, by which all creatures must be subjugated, why may we
not understand this phrase of the devils, who will indeed stand at the
tribunal of the Lord, and acknowledge him as their Judge with fear and
trembling? As Paul himself elsewhere explains the same prophecy: “We shall
all stand,” says he, “before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is
written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,” &c.(1815)
But they reply, we cannot give the same kind of interpretation to this
passage in the Revelation: “Every creature which is in heaven, and on the
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are
in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be
unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and
ever.”(1816) This I readily concede; but what creatures do they suppose to
be here enumerated? for it is very certain, that the expressions
comprehend creatures both irrational and inanimate. It is a mere
declaration that all the parts of the world, from the summit of the
heavens to the centre of the earth, celebrate, in their respective ways,
the glory of the Creator. What they produce from the history of the
Maccabees, I shall not honour with an answer, that I may not be supposed
to place that work in the catalogue of sacred books. But Augustine, they
say, received it as canonical. I inquire, first, With what degree of
credit did he receive it? He says, “The history of the Maccabees is not
esteemed by the Jews as the law, and the prophets, and the Psalms, to
which the Lord gives a testimony, as being witnesses concerning him,
saying, ‘All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.’(1817) But
it has been received by the Church, and not altogether unprofitably, if it
be read or heard with sobriety,” &c. Jerome, without any scruple,
inculcates, that its authority is of no force in the support of doctrines.
And from that old treatise on the Exposition of the Creed, which is
ascribed to Cyprian, it clearly appears that it was not admitted in the
ancient Church. But why am I now contending to no purpose? as though the
author himself did not sufficiently show what deference is due to him,
when, at the conclusion, he begs pardon if he should have spoken any thing
improperly. Certainly he who confesses that his writings need pardon,
proclaims them not to be the oracles of the Holy Spirit. Besides, the
piety of Judas Maccabeus is commended on no other ground, but because he
had a firm hope of the final resurrection, when he sent to Jerusalem an
oblation for the dead. Nor does the historian represent this oblation as
intended to be a price of redemption, but that those in whose names it was
offered might be partakers of eternal life with the rest of the faithful
who had died in defence of their country and religion. This action was
accompanied, indeed, by superstition and preposterous zeal; but they are
more than infatuated who apply to us a sacrifice offered under the law;
since we know, that all such ancient usages ceased at the advent of
Christ.

IX. But they find in Paul an invincible argument, which cannot be so
easily answered. “If any man,” says he, “build upon this foundation gold,
silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man’s work shall be
made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed
by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If
any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall
be saved; yet so as by fire.”(1818) What can this be, they ask, but
purgatorial fire, by which the pollution of sins is cleansed, that we may
enter pure into the kingdom of God? But most of the fathers were of a
different opinion, understanding the word “fire” to mean tribulation, or
the cross, by which the Lord tries his children, to purify them from all
carnal pollution; and this is much more probable than the notion of
purgatory. I cannot, however, coincide with them; for I think I have
discovered a far more certain and lucid interpretation of this passage.
But before I state it, I could wish them to answer this question—whether
they suppose it was necessary for the apostles and all the saints to pass
through this purgatorial fire. I know they will answer in the negative;
for it were too absurd, that purification should be necessary to those
whose redundant merits they vainly imagine to superabound to all the
members of the Church. But the apostle affirms this; for he says, not that
the work of some, but that the work of all, shall be proved. Nor is this
my own argument, but Augustine’s, who thus opposes the interpretation now
adopted by our adversaries. And, what would be still more absurd, he says,
not that they shall pass through the fire on account of any works, but
that if they have edified the Church with perfect fidelity, they shall
receive a reward, when their work shall have been tried by fire. In the
first place, we see that the apostle uses a metaphor, when he calls
doctrines of human invention “wood, hay, stubble.” The reason of the
metaphor also is evident; that as wood, immediately on being placed in
contact with fire, consumes and wastes away, so neither will those
doctrines be able to abide the test of examination. Now, it is well known
that such an examination proceeds from the Spirit of God. Therefore, to
pursue the thread of the metaphor, and to adapt the parts by a proper
relation to each other, he gives the Holy Spirit’s examination the
appellation of _fire_. For as gold and silver afford a more certain proof
of their goodness and purity in proportion to their proximity to the fire,
so Divine truth receives the stronger confirmation of its authority, in
proportion to the strictness of spiritual examination by which it is
investigated. As wood, hay, and stubble, brought into contact with fire,
are speedily consumed, so the inventions of men, unsupported by the word
of God, cannot bear the examination of the Holy Spirit, but must
immediately fall to the ground. Finally, if false doctrines are compared
to wood, hay, and stubble, because, like wood, hay, and stubble, they are
consumed by fire and entirely destroyed, and if they are overcome only by
the Spirit of the Lord, it follows that the Spirit is that fire by which
they will be proved. This trial Paul calls _the day_, or _the day of the
Lord_, according to the common phraseology of Scripture. For that is
called the day of the Lord, whenever he manifests his presence to men.
Now, we enjoy most of the light of his countenance when we are favoured
with the radiance of his truth. It has been evinced that Paul means no
other fire than the examination of the Holy Spirit. But how are they saved
by the fire, who suffer the loss of their work? This it will not be
difficult to comprehend, if we consider of what class of men he is
speaking. For he characterizes them as builders of the Church, who retain
their legitimate foundation, but raise the superstructure of unequal
materials: they are such as do not deviate from the principal and
essential articles of the faith, but err in inferior and less important
ones, mixing their own inventions with the word of God. Such, I say, must
suffer the loss of their work, by their inventions being destroyed; but
they are themselves saved, yet so as by fire; that is, not because their
ignorance and error can be approved by the Lord, but because they are
purified from them by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore,
whoever have corrupted the pure gold of the Divine word with this filth of
purgatory, must necessarily suffer the loss of their work.

X. Our opponents will reply, that it has been a very ancient opinion in
the Church. Paul removes this objection when he comprehends even his own
age in this sentence, where he denounces, that all must suffer the loss of
their work, who, in the structure of the Church, should place any thing
not corresponding to the foundation. When our adversaries, therefore,
object to me, that to offer prayers for the dead has been the practice of
more than thirteen hundred years, I inquire of them, on the contrary, by
what word of God, by what revelation, by what example, it is sanctioned.
For they are not only destitute of any testimonies of Scripture in favour
of it, but none of the examples of the saints there recorded exhibit any
thing like it. Respecting mourning and funeral offices, it contains many
and sometimes long accounts; but of prayers for persons deceased, you
cannot discover the smallest hint. But the greater the importance of the
subject, so much the rather ought it to have been particularly mentioned.
Even the fathers themselves, who offered up prayers for the dead, saw that
they had neither a Divine command, nor a legitimate example, to justify
the practice. Why, then, did they presume to adopt it? In this, I say,
they discovered themselves to be but men; and therefore I contend, that
what they did ought not to be enforced for the imitation of others. For
since believers ought not to undertake any thing without an assurance of
conscience, according to the direction of Paul,(1819) this assurance is
chiefly requisite in prayer. Yet it will be urged, It is probable that
they were impelled to it by some reason. I reply, Perhaps they sought some
consolation to alleviate their sorrow, and it might appear inhuman not to
give some testimony of their love towards the dead in the presence of God.
The propensity of the human mind to this affection, all men know by
experience. The custom, also, when received, was like a flame, kindling
ardour in the minds of multitudes. We know that funeral rites have been
performed to the dead among all nations, and in every age, and that
lustrations have been annually made for their departed spirits. For though
Satan has deluded foolish mortals with these fallacies, yet he has
borrowed the occasion of the deception from a true principle—that death is
not an annihilation, but a transition from this life into another. Nor can
it be doubted, but that even superstition itself convicts the heathen
before the tribunal of God, for neglecting all the concerns of a future
life, which they professed to believe. Now, Christians, because they would
not be inferior to the heathen, were ashamed to perform no services for
the dead, as though they had wholly ceased to exist. Hence that
inconsiderate officiousness; because if they were negligent in attending
to funerals, feasts, and oblations, they were afraid they should expose
themselves to great disgrace. What first proceeded from a perverse
emulation, has been so repeatedly augmented by novel additions, that the
principal sanctity of Popery consists in relieving the distresses of the
dead. But the Scripture administers another consolation, far better and
more substantial, when it declares that “Blessed are the dead which die in
the Lord;” and adds as a reason, “that they may rest from their
labours.”(1820) But we ought not to indulge our own affection so far as to
introduce a corrupt method of praying into the Church. Certainly, he that
has but a moderate share of penetration, will easily discover all that we
find on this subject in the fathers to have been in compliance with
general practice and vulgar ignorance. I confess, they were also involved
in the error themselves, from an inconsiderate credulity which frequently
deprives the human mind of its judgment. But in the mean time, the mere
reading of them demonstrates with what hesitation they recommend prayers
for the dead. Augustine, in his Book of Confessions, relates that Monica,
his mother, had vehemently entreated to be remembered in the celebration
of the mysteries at the altar. This was the wish of an old woman, which
her son did not examine by the standard of Scripture; but from his natural
affection for her, wished it to gain the approbation of others. But the
treatise composed by him, on Care for the Dead, contains so many
hesitations, that it ought by its coolness to extinguish the heat of
imprudent zeal. If any one desires to be an intercessor for the dead, this
treatise, with its frigid probabilities, will certainly remove all the
solicitude he may have previously experienced. For this is its only
support, that since it has been customary to pray for the dead, it is a
duty not to be despised. But though I concede, that the ancient writers of
the Church esteemed it a pious act to pray for the dead, yet we must
always remember a rule which can never deceive—that it is not right for us
in our prayers to introduce any thing of our own, but that our desires
must be submitted to the word of God; because he chooses to prescribe what
he designs we should ask. Now, since there is not a syllable, in all the
law or the gospel, which allows us to pray for the dead, it is a profane
abuse of the name of God, to attempt more than he enjoins. But that our
adversaries may not glory, as though the ancient Church were associated
with them in their error, I assert that there is a considerable difference
between them. The ancients preserved the memory of the dead, that they
might not seem to have cast off all concern for them; but they at the same
time confessed their uncertainty concerning their state. Respecting
purgatory they asserted nothing, but considered it as quite uncertain. The
moderns expect their reveries concerning purgatory to be admitted as
unquestionable articles of faith. The fathers, in the communion of the
sacred supper, merely recommended their deceased friends to the mercy of
God. The Papists are incessantly urging a concern for the dead; and by
their importunate declamations cause it to be preferred to all the duties
of charity. Besides, it would not be difficult for us to produce some
testimonies from the fathers which manifestly overthrow all those prayers
for the dead which were then used. Such is this of Augustine; when he
teaches that all men expect the resurrection of the body and eternal
glory, and that every individual enters on the fruition of that rest which
follows after death, if he is worthy of it when he dies. Therefore he
declares that all the pious, as well as the prophets, apostles, and
martyrs, enjoy a blessed repose immediately after death. If such be their
condition, what advantage will our prayers confer on them? I pass over
those grosser superstitions with which they have fascinated the minds of
the simple; which nevertheless are innumerable, and for the most part so
monstrous, that they cannot be varnished over by any honest pretext. I
omit, also, that most disgraceful traffic which they licentiously carried
on while the world was in such a state of stupidity. For I should never
arrive at a conclusion, and I have already furnished the pious reader with
sufficient to establish his conscience.

Chapter VI. The Life Of A Christian. Scriptural Arguments And Exhortations
To It.

We have said that the end of regeneration is, that the life of believers
may exhibit a symmetry and agreement between the righteousness of God and
their obedience; and that thus they may confirm the adoption by which they
are accepted as his children. But though the law of God contains in it
that newness of life by which his image is restored in us, yet since our
tardiness needs much stimulation and assistance, it will be useful to
collect from various places of Scripture a rule for the reformation of the
life, that they who cordially repent may not be bewildered in their
pursuits. Now, when I undertake the regulation of a Christian’s life, I
know that I am entering on an argument various and copious, and the
magnitude of which might fill a large volume, if I designed a complete
discussion of every part of it. For we see to what great prolixity the
fathers have extended the exhortations composed by them only on single
virtues; and that without any excessive loquacity; for, whatever virtue it
is intended to recommend in an oration, the copiousness of the matter
naturally produces such a diffusiveness of style, that unless you have
spoken largely, you seem not to have done justice to the subject. But my
design is not to extend the plan of life, which I am now about to deliver,
so far as particularly to discourse on each distinct virtue, and expatiate
into exhortations. These things may be sought in the writings of others,
especially in the homilies of the fathers. It will be sufficient for me if
I point out a method by which a pious man may be conducted to the right
end in the regulation of his life, and briefly assign a universal rule, by
which he may properly estimate his duties. There will, perhaps, at some
future period be a suitable opportunity for declamations; or I shall leave
to others an office for which I am not calculated. I am naturally fond of
brevity; and, perhaps, were I desirous of speaking in a more copious
manner, I should not succeed. And if a more prolix method of teaching were
most acceptable, yet I should scarcely be inclined to make the trial. The
plan of the present work, however, requires me to treat a simple doctrine
with all possible brevity. As the philosophers have certain principles of
rectitude and honour, whence they deduce particular duties and the whole
circle of virtues, so the Scripture is not without its order in this
respect, but maintains an economy superlatively beautiful, and far more
certain, than all the systems of the philosophers. There is only this
difference—that, the philosophers being ambitious men, they have
sedulously affected an exquisite perspicuity of method, in order to make
an ostentatious display of their ingenious dexterity. But the Spirit,
whose teaching is void of affectation, has not so exactly or perpetually
observed a methodical plan; which, nevertheless, by using it in some
places, he sufficiently indicates ought not to be neglected by us.

II. This Scripture plan, of which we are now treating, consists chiefly in
these two things—the first, that a love of righteousness, to which we have
otherwise no natural propensity, be instilled and introduced into our
hearts; the second, that a rule be prescribed to us, to prevent our taking
any devious steps in the race of righteousness. Now, in the recommendation
of righteousness, it uses a great number of very excellent arguments, many
of which we have before noticed on different occasions, and some we shall
briefly touch on in this place. With what better foundation can it begin,
than when it admonishes us that we ought to be holy, because _our God is
holy_?(1821) For when we were dispersed like scattered sheep, and lost in
the labyrinth of the world, he gathered us together again, that he might
associate us to himself. When we hear any mention of our union with God,
we should remember, that holiness must be the bond of it; not that we
attain communion with him by the merit of holiness, (since it is rather
necessary for us, in the first place, to adhere to him, in order that,
being endued with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls;) but
because it is a peculiar property of his glory not to have any intercourse
with iniquity and uncleanness. Wherefore also it teaches, that this is the
end of our vocation, which it is requisite for us always to keep in view,
if we desire to correspond to the design of God in calling us. For to what
purpose was it that we were delivered from the iniquity and pollution of
the world, in which we had been immerged, if we permit ourselves to wallow
in them as long as we live? Besides, it also admonishes us that, to be
numbered among the people of God, we must inhabit the holy city
Jerusalem;(1822) which, he having consecrated it to himself, cannot
without impiety be profaned by impure inhabitants. Whence these
expressions: “He shall abide in the tabernacle of the Lord, that walketh
uprightly and worketh righteousness,” &c.,(1823) because it is very
unbecoming the sanctuary which he inhabits, to be rendered as filthy as a
stable.

III. And as a further incitement to us, it shows, that as God the Father
has reconciled us to himself in Christ, so he has exhibited to us in him a
pattern, to which it is his will that we should be conformed.(1824) Now,
let those who are of opinion that the philosophers have the only just and
orderly systems of moral philosophy, show me, in any of their works, a
more excellent economy than that which I have stated. When they intend to
exhort us to the sublimest virtue, they advance no argument but that we
ought to live agreeably to nature; but the Scripture deduces its
exhortation from the true source, when it not only enjoins us to refer our
life to God the author of it, to whom it belongs, but, after having taught
us, that we are degenerated from the original state in which we were
created, adds, that Christ, by whom we have been reconciled to God, is
proposed to us as an example, whose character we should exhibit in our
lives. What can be required more efficacious than this one consideration?
indeed, what can be required besides? For if the Lord has adopted us as
his sons on this condition,—that we exhibit in our life an imitation of
Christ the bond of our adoption,—unless we addict and devote ourselves to
righteousness, we not only most perfidiously revolt from our Creator, but
also abjure him as our Saviour. The Scripture derives matter of
exhortation from all the blessings of God which it recounts to us, and
from all the parts of our salvation. It argues, that since God has
discovered himself as a Father to us, we must be convicted of the basest
ingratitude, unless we, on our part, manifest ourselves to be his
children; that since Christ has purified us in the laver of his blood, and
has communicated this purification by baptism, it does not become us to be
defiled with fresh pollution; that since he has united us to his body, we
should, as his members, solicitously beware lest we asperse ourselves with
any blemish or disgrace; that since he who is our Head has ascended to
heaven, we ought to divest ourselves of all terrestrial affection, and
aspire thither with all our soul; that since the Holy Spirit has dedicated
us as temples to God, we should use our utmost exertions, that the glory
of God may be displayed by us; and ought not to allow ourselves to be
profaned with the pollution of sin; that since both our soul and our body
are destined to heavenly incorruption and a never‐fading crown, we ought
to exert our most strenuous efforts to preserve them pure and uncorrupt
till the day of the Lord. These, I say, are the best foundations for the
proper regulation of the life, such as we cannot find in the philosophers;
who, in the recommendation of virtue, never rise above the natural dignity
of man.

IV. This is a proper place to address those who have nothing but the name
and the symbol of Christ, and yet would be denominated Christians. But
with what face do they glory in his sacred name? For none have any
intercourse with Christ but those who have received the true knowledge of
him from the word of the gospel. Now, the apostle denies that any have
rightly learned Christ, who have not been taught that they must put off
the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on
Christ.(1825) Their knowledge of Christ, then, is proved to be a false and
injurious pretence, with whatever eloquence and volubility they may talk
concerning the gospel. For it is a doctrine not of the tongue, but of the
life; and is not apprehended merely with the understanding and memory,
like other sciences, but is then only received, when it possesses the
whole soul, and finds a seat and residence in the inmost affection of the
heart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God by boasting
themselves to be what they are not, or show themselves disciples not
unworthy of Christ, their Master. We have allotted the first place to the
doctrine which contains our religion, because it is the origin of our
salvation; but that it may not be unprofitable to us, it must be
transfused into our breast, pervade our manners, and thus transform us
into itself. If the philosophers are justly incensed against, and banish
with disgrace from their society, those who, while they profess an art
which ought to be a rule of life, convert it into a sophistical
loquacity,—with how much better reason may we detest those sophists who
are contented to have the gospel on their lips, whilst its efficacy ought
to penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, to dwell in the soul, and
to affect the whole man with a hundred times more energy than the frigid
exhortations of the philosophers!

V. Yet I would not insist upon it as absolutely necessary, that the
manners of a Christian should breathe nothing but the perfect gospel;
which, nevertheless, ought both to be wished and to be aimed at. But I do
not so rigorously require evangelical perfection as not to acknowledge as
a Christian, one who has not yet attained to it; for then all would be
excluded from the Church; since no man can be found who is not still at a
great distance from it; and many have hitherto made but a very small
progress, whom it would, nevertheless, be unjust to reject. What then? let
us set before our eyes that mark, to which alone our pursuit must be
directed. Let that be prescribed as the goal towards which we must
earnestly tend. For it is not lawful for you to make such a compromise
with God, as to undertake a part of the duties prescribed to you in his
word, and to omit part of them, at your own pleasure. For, in the first
place, he every where recommends integrity as a principal branch of his
worship; by which he intends a sincere simplicity of heart, free from all
guile and falsehood; the opposite of which is a double heart; as though it
had been said, that the beginning of a life of uprightness is spiritual,
when the internal affection of the mind is unfeignedly devoted to God in
the cultivation of holiness and righteousness. But since no man in this
terrestrial and corporeal prison has strength sufficient to press forward
in his course with a due degree of alacrity, and the majority are
oppressed with such great debility, that they stagger and halt, and even
creep on the ground, and so make very inconsiderable advances,—let us
every one proceed according to our small ability, and prosecute the
journey we have begun. No man will be so unhappy, but that he may every
day make some progress, however small. Therefore, let us not cease to
strive, that we may be incessantly advancing in the way of the Lord; nor
let us despair on account of the smallness of our success; for however our
success may not correspond to our wishes, yet our labour is not lost, when
this day surpasses the preceding one; provided that, with sincere
simplicity, we keep our end in view, and press forward to the goal, not
practising self‐adulation, nor indulging our own evil propensities, but
perpetually exerting our endeavours after increasing degrees of
amelioration, till we shall have arrived at a perfection of goodness,
which, indeed, we seek and pursue as long as we live, and shall then
attain, when, divested of all corporeal infirmity, we shall be admitted by
God into complete communion with him.

Chapter VII. Summary Of The Christian Life. Self‐Denial.

Although the Divine law contains a most excellent and well‐arranged plan
for the regulation of life, yet it has pleased the heavenly Teacher to
conform men by a more accurate doctrine to the rule which he had
prescribed in the law. And the principle of that doctrine is this—that it
is the duty of believers to “present their bodies a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable unto God;”(1826) and that in this consists the legitimate
worship of him. Hence is deduced an argument for exhorting them, “Be not
conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your
mind, that ye may prove what is that will of God.” This is a very
important consideration, that we are consecrated and dedicated to God;
that we may not hereafter think, speak, meditate, or do any thing but with
a view to his glory. For that which is sacred cannot, without great
injustice towards him, be applied to unholy uses. If we are not our own,
but the Lord’s, it is manifest both what error we must avoid, and to what
end all the actions of our lives are to be directed. We are not our own;
therefore neither our reason nor our will should predominate in our
deliberations and actions. We are not our own; therefore let us not
propose it as our end, to seek what may be expedient for us according to
the flesh. We are not our own; therefore let us, as far as possible,
forget ourselves and all things that are ours. On the contrary, we are
God’s; to him, therefore, let us live and die. We are God’s; therefore let
his wisdom and will preside in all our actions. We are God’s; towards him,
therefore, as our only legitimate end, let every part of our lives be
directed. O, how great a proficiency has that man made, who, having been
taught that he is not his own, has taken the sovereignty and government of
himself from his own reason, to surrender it to God! For as compliance
with their own inclinations leads men most effectually to ruin, so to
place no dependence on our own knowledge or will, but merely to follow the
guidance of the Lord, is the only way of safety. Let this, then, be the
first step, to depart from ourselves, that we may apply all the vigour of
our faculties to the service of the Lord. By service I mean, not that only
which consists in verbal obedience, but that by which the human mind,
divested of its natural carnality, resigns itself wholly to the direction
of the Divine Spirit. Of this transformation, which Paul styles a
renovation of the mind,(1827) though it is the first entrance into life,
all the philosophers were ignorant. For they set up Reason as the sole
directress of man; they think that she is exclusively to be attended to;
in short, to her alone they assign the government of the conduct. But the
Christian philosophy commands her to give place and submit to the Holy
Spirit; so that now the man himself lives not, but carries about Christ
living and reigning within him.(1828)

II. Hence also that other consequence, that we should seek not our own
things, but those which are agreeable to the will of the Lord, and
conducive to the promotion of his glory. This also argues a great
proficiency, that almost forgetting ourselves, and certainly neglecting
all selfish regards, we endeavour faithfully to devote our attention to
God and his commandments. For when the Scripture enjoins us to discard all
private and selfish considerations, it not only erases from our minds the
cupidity of wealth, the lust of power, and the favour of men, but also
eradicates ambition and all appetite after human glory, with other more
secret plagues. Indeed, a Christian man ought to be so disposed and
prepared, as to reflect that he has to do with God every moment of his
life. Thus, as he will measure all his actions by his will and
determination, so he will refer the whole bias of his mind religiously to
him. For he who has learned to regard God in every undertaking, is also
raised above every vain imagination. This is that denial of ourselves,
which Christ, from the commencement of their course, so diligently enjoins
on his disciples; which, when it has once obtained the government of the
heart, leaves room neither for pride, haughtiness, or ostentation, nor for
avarice, libidinousness, luxury, effeminacy, or any other evils which are
the offspring of self‐love. On the contrary, wherever it does not reign,
there either the grossest vices are indulged without the least shame; or,
if there exist any appearance of virtue, it is vitiated by a depraved
passion for glory. Show me, if you can, a single individual, who, unless
he has renounced himself according to the command of the Lord, is
voluntarily disposed to practise virtue among men. For all who have not
been influenced by this disposition, have followed virtue merely from the
love of praise. And even those of the philosophers who have ever contended
that virtue is desirable for its own sake, have been inflated with so much
arrogance, that it is evident they desired virtue for no other reason than
to furnish them occasion for the exercise of pride. But God is so far from
being delighted, either with those who are ambitious of popular praise, or
with hearts so full of pride and presumption, that he pronounces “they
have their reward” in this world, and represents harlots and publicans as
nearer to the kingdom of heaven than such persons. But we have not yet
clearly stated the number and magnitude of the obstacles by which a man is
impeded in the pursuit of that which is right, as long as he has refrained
from all self‐denial. For it is an ancient and true observation, that
there is a world of vices concealed in the soul of man. Nor can you find
any other remedy than to deny yourself and discard all selfish
considerations, and to devote your whole attention to the pursuit of those
things which the Lord requires of you, and which ought to be pursued for
this sole reason, because they are pleasing to him.

III. The same apostle, in another place, gives a more distinct, though a
brief, representation of all the parts of a well‐regulated life. “The
grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching
us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,
righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all
iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
works.”(1829) For after having proposed the grace of God to animate us, in
order to prepare the way for us truly to worship God, he removes two
obstacles, which are our chief impediments; first, ungodliness, to which
we have naturally too strong a propensity, and secondly, worldly lusts,
which extend themselves further. The term “ungodliness” not only denotes
superstitions, but comprehends also every thing that is repugnant to the
serious fear of God. And “worldly lusts” mean the carnal affections.
Therefore he enjoins us, with reference to both tables of the law, to
forsake our former propensities, and to renounce all the dictates of our
own reason and will. He reduces all the actions of life to three
classes—sobriety, righteousness, and godliness. “Sobriety” undoubtedly
denotes chastity and temperance, as well as a pure and frugal use of
temporal blessings, and patience under poverty. “Righteousness” includes
all the duties of equity, that every man may receive what is his due.
“Godliness” separates us from the pollutions of the world, and by true
holiness unites us to God. When these virtues are indissolubly connected,
they produce absolute perfection. But since nothing is more difficult than
to forsake all carnal considerations, to subdue and renounce our
appetites, to devote ourselves to God and our brethren, and to live the
life of angels amidst the corruptions of the world,—in order to extricate
our minds from every snare, Paul recalls our attention to the hope of a
blessed immortality; apprizing us that our efforts are not in vain;
because, as Christ once appeared as a Redeemer, so, at his final advent,
he will manifest the benefits of the salvation he has obtained. Thus he
dispels the fascinations which blind us, and prevent our aspiring with
becoming ardour to the glories of heaven, and at the same time teaches us
that we must live as strangers and pilgrims in the world, that we may not
lose the heavenly inheritance.

IV. In these words we perceive, that self‐denial relates partly to men,
but partly, and indeed principally, to God. For when the Scripture enjoins
us to conduct ourselves in such a manner towards men, as in honour to
prefer one another, and faithfully to devote our whole attention to the
promotion of their advantage,(1830) it gives such commands as our heart
can by no means receive, without having been previously divested of its
natural bias. For we are all so blinded and fascinated with self‐love,
that every one imagines he has a just right to exalt himself, and to
undervalue all others who stand in competition with him. If God has
conferred on us any valuable qualification, relying thereon, our hearts
are immediately lifted up; and we not only swell, but almost burst with
pride. The vices in which we abound, we sedulously conceal from others,
and flatter ourselves with the pretence that they are diminutive and
trivial, and even sometimes embrace them as virtues. If the same talents
which we admire in ourselves, or even superior ones, appear in others, in
order that we may not be obliged to acknowledge their superiority, we
depreciate and diminish them with the utmost malignity: if they have any
vices, not content to notice them with severe and sharp animadversions, we
odiously amplify them. Hence that insolence, that every one of us, as if
exempted from the common lot, is desirous of pre‐eminence above the rest
of mankind; and severely and haughtily contemns every man, or at least
despises him as an inferior. The poor yield to the rich, plebeians to
nobles, servants to masters, the illiterate to the learned; but there is
no man who does not cherish within him some idea of his own excellence.
Thus all men, in flattering themselves, carry, as it were, a kingdom in
their own breast; for arrogating to themselves the height of self‐
gratulation, they pass censure on the understandings and conduct of
others; but if any contention arises, it produces an eruption of the
poison. For many discover some gentleness, as long as they find every
thing pleasant and amiable; but how many are there who preserve the same
constant course of good humour when they are disturbed and irritated? Nor
is there any other remedy, than the eradication from the inmost recesses
of the heart of this most noxious pest of ambition and self‐love; as it is
indeed eradicated by the doctrine of the Scripture. For if we attend to
its instructions, we must remember, that the talents with which God has
favoured us, are not excellences originating from ourselves, but free
gifts of God; of which if any are proud, they betray their ingratitude.
“Who maketh thee to differ?” saith Paul. “Now, if thou didst receive all
things, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received them?”(1831) In
the next place, by assiduous observation and acknowledgment of our faults,
we must recall our minds to humility. Thus there will remain in us nothing
to inflate us, but great reason for dejection. On the other hand, we are
enjoined, whatever gifts of God we perceive in others, to revere and
esteem them, so as to honour those in whom they reside. For it would
betray great wickedness in us to rob them of that honour which God has
given them. Their faults we are taught to overlook, not indeed to
encourage them by adulation, but never on account of them to insult those
whom we ought to cherish with benevolence and honour. The result of
attention to these directions will be, that with whomsoever we are
concerned, we shall conduct ourselves not only with moderation and good
humour, but with civility and friendship. For we shall never arrive at
true meekness by any other way, than by having our hearts imbued with
self‐abasement and a respect for others.

V. How extremely difficult it is for you to discharge your duty in seeking
the advantage of your neighbour! Unless you quit all selfish
considerations, and, as it were, lay aside yourself, you will effect
nothing in this duty. For how can you perform those which Paul inculcates
as works of charity, unless you renounce yourself, and devote yourself
wholly to serve others? “Charity,” says he, “suffereth long, and is kind;
charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth
not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked,”
&c.(1832) If this be all that is required, that we seek not our own, yet
we must do no small violence to nature, which so strongly inclines us to
the exclusive love of ourselves, that it does not so easily permit us to
neglect ourselves and our own concerns in order to be vigilant for the
advantage of others, and even voluntarily to recede from our right, to
resign it to another. But the Scripture leads us to this, admonishes us,
that whatever favours we obtain from the Lord, we are intrusted with them
on this condition, that they should be applied to the common benefit of
the Church; and that, therefore, the legitimate use of all his favours, is
a liberal and kind communication of them to others. There cannot be
imagined a more certain rule, or a more powerful exhortation to the
observance of it, than when we are taught, that all the blessings we enjoy
are Divine deposits, committed to our trust on this condition, that they
should be dispensed for the benefit of our neighbours. But the Scripture
goes still further, when it compares them to the powers with which the
members of the human body are endued. For no member has its power for
itself, nor applies it to its private use; but transfuses it among its
fellow‐members, receiving no advantage from it but what proceeds from the
common convenience of the whole body. So, whatever ability a pious man
possesses, he ought to possess it for his brethren, consulting his own
private interest in no way inconsistent with a cordial attention to the
common edification of the Church. Let this, then, be our rule for
benignity and beneficence,—that whatever God has conferred on us, which
enables us to assist our neighbour, we are the stewards of it, and must
one day render an account of our stewardship; and that the only right
dispensation of what has been committed to us, is that which is regulated
by the law of love. Thus we shall not only always connect the study to
promote the advantage of others with a concern for our own private
interests, but shall prefer the good of others to our own. To teach us
that the dispensation of the gifts we receive from heaven ought to be
regulated by this law, God anciently enjoined the same even in regard to
the smallest bounties of his liberality. For he commanded the people to
offer to him the first‐fruits of the corn, as a solemn avowal that it was
unlawful for them to enjoy any blessings not previously consecrated to
him. And if the gifts of God are not sanctified to us till after we have
with our own hands dedicated them to their Author, that must evidently be
a sinful abuse which is unconnected with such a dedication. But in vain
would you attempt to enrich the Lord by a communication of your
possessions. Therefore, since your “goodness extendeth not to him,”(1833)
as the Psalmist says, you must exercise it “towards the saints that are in
the earth;” and alms are compared to sacred oblations, to show that these
exercises of charity under the gospel, correspond to those offerings under
the law.

VI. Moreover, that we may not be weary of doing good, which otherwise
would of necessity soon be the case, we must add also the other character
mentioned by the apostle, that “charity suffereth long, and is not easily
provoked.” The Lord commands us to do “good unto all men,”(1834)
universally, a great part of whom, estimated according to their own
merits, are very undeserving; but here the Scripture assists us with an
excellent rule, when it inculcates, that we must not regard the intrinsic
merit of men, but must consider the image of God in them, to which we owe
all possible honour and love; but that this image is most carefully to be
observed in them “who are of the household of faith,”(1835) inasmuch as it
is renewed and restored by the Spirit of Christ. Whoever, therefore, is
presented to you that needs your kind offices, you have no reason to
refuse him your assistance. Say that he is a stranger; yet the Lord has
impressed on him a character which ought to be familiar to you; for which
reason he forbids you to despise your own flesh.(1836) Say that he is
contemptible and worthless; but the Lord shows him to be one whom he has
deigned to grace with his own image. Say that you are obliged to him for
no services; but God has made him, as it were, his substitute, to whom you
acknowledge yourself to be under obligations for numerous and important
benefits. Say that he is unworthy of your making the smallest exertion on
his account; but the image of God, by which he is recommended to you,
deserves your surrender of yourself and all that you possess. If he not
only has deserved no favour, but, on the contrary, has provoked you with
injuries and insults,—even this is no just reason why you should cease to
embrace him with your affection, and to perform to him the offices of
love. He has deserved, you will say, very different treatment from me. But
what has the Lord deserved? who, when he commands you to forgive men all
their offences against you, certainly intends that they should be charged
to himself. This is the only way of attaining that which is not only
difficult, but utterly repugnant to the nature of man—to love them who
hate us,(1837) to requite injuries with kindnesses, and to return
blessings for curses.(1838) We should remember, that we must not reflect
on the wickedness of men, but contemplate the Divine image in them; which,
concealing and obliterating their faults, by its beauty and dignity
allures us to embrace them in the arms of our love.

VII. This mortification, therefore, will not take place in us unless we
fulfil all the duties of charity. These are fulfilled, not by him who
merely performs all the external offices of charity, even without the
omission of one, but by him who does this from a sincere principle of
love. For it may happen, that a man may fully discharge his duty to all
men, with respect to external actions, and, at the same time, be very far
from discharging it in the right way. For you may see some men who would
be thought extremely liberal, and yet never bestow any thing without
upbraiding, either by pride of countenance, or by insolence of language.
And we are sunk to such a depth of calamity in this unhappy age, that
scarcely any alms are given, at least by the majority of mankind, but in a
haughty and contemptuous manner—a corruption which ought not to have been
tolerated even among heathen; for of Christians there is something further
required, than to display a cheerfulness of countenance, and to render
their benefactions amiable by civility of language. In the first place,
they ought to imagine themselves in the situation of the person who needs
their assistance, and to commiserate his case, just as though they
themselves felt and suffered the same; so that they may be impelled, by a
sense of mercy and humanity, to afford assistance to him as readily as if
it were to themselves. He who comes to the assistance of his brethren
under the influence of such a disposition, not only will not contaminate
his services with arrogance or reproach, but will neither despise his
brother who is the object of his beneficence, as needing assistance, nor
domineer over him as under an obligation to him; no more, for instance,
than we insult a diseased member, for whose restoration the rest of the
body labours, or suppose it to be under particular obligations to the
other members, because it has needed more assistance than it returned. For
the communication of services between the members of the body, is esteemed
to be in no sense gratuitous, but rather a discharge of that which, being
due by the law of nature, it would be monstrous to refuse. And for this
reason, he will not suppose himself to have discharged all his duty, who
has performed one kind of service; as it generally happens, that a rich
man, after having bestowed some part of his property, leaves other burdens
to be borne by other persons, and considers himself as exempted from all
concern about them. On the contrary, every man will reflect with himself,
that however great he may be, he is a debtor to his neighbour, and that no
bounds should be fixed to the exercise of beneficence towards them, except
when his ability fails, which, as far as it extends, ought to be limited
by the rule of charity.

VIII. Let us describe again, more at large, the principal branch of self‐
denial, which we have said relates to God; and indeed many observations
have already been made concerning it, which it would be needless to
repeat: it will be sufficient to show how it habituates us to equanimity
and patience. First, therefore, in seeking the convenience or tranquillity
of the present life, the Scripture calls us to this point; that resigning
ourselves and all that we have to the will of God, we should surrender to
him the affections of our heart, to be conquered and reduced to
subjection. To desire wealth and honours, to be ambitious of power, to
accumulate riches, to amass all those vanities which appear conducive to
magnificence and pomp, our passion is furious, and our cupidity unbounded.
On the contrary, to poverty, obscurity, and meanness, we feel a wonderful
fear and abhorrence, which stimulate us to avoid them by all possible
means. Hence we may see, how restless the minds of all those persons are,
who regulate their lives according to their own reason; how many arts they
try, and with what exertions they fatigue themselves, in order, on the one
hand, to obtain the objects of ambition or avarice, on the other, to avoid
poverty and meanness. Pious men, therefore, that they may not be involved
in such snares, must pursue the following course: First, let them neither
desire, nor hope, nor entertain a thought of prosperity, from any other
cause than the Divine blessing; and on that let them securely and
confidently depend. For however the flesh may appear to itself to be
abundantly sufficient, when it either attempts by its own industry, or
strenuous exertions, to attain honours and wealth, or is assisted by the
favour of man,—yet it is certain, that all these things are nothing, and
that we shall obtain no advantage, either by ingenuity or by labour, but
as far as the Lord shall prosper both. On the contrary, his benediction
alone finds a way, even through all impediments, so as to bring all our
affairs to a joyful and prosperous conclusion. And though we may, for the
most part, be able without it to obtain for ourselves some degree of
opulence and glory, as we daily behold impious men accumulating great
honours and enormous wealth, yet, since those who are under the curse of
God enjoy not even the smallest particle of happiness, we shall acquire
nothing without the Divine blessing, which will not eventually prove a
calamity to us. And that is by no means to be desired, the acquisition of
which renders men more miserable.

IX. Therefore, if we believe that all the cause of desirable prosperity
consists in the Divine benediction alone, without which miseries and
calamities of every kind await us, it follows also, that we should not
passionately strive for wealth and honours, either relying on our own
diligence or acuteness of understanding, or depending on the favour of
men, or confiding in a vain imagination of chance; but that we should
always regard the Lord, to be conducted by his direction to whatsoever lot
he has provided for us. The consequence of this will be, in the first
place, that we shall not rush forward to seize on wealth or honours by
unlawful actions, by deceitful and criminal arts, by rapacity and injury
of our neighbours; but shall confine ourselves to the pursuit of those
interests, which will not seduce us from the path of innocence. For who
can expect the assistance of the Divine benediction, amidst fraud, rapine,
and other iniquitous acts? For as that follows him only whose thoughts are
pure, and whose actions are upright, so it calls away all those by whom it
is sought, from irregular thoughts and corrupt practices. In the next
place, we shall find a restraint laid upon us, to keep us from being
inflamed with an inordinate desire of growing rich, and from ambitiously
aspiring after honours. For with what face can any man confide in the
assistance of God, towards obtaining things which he desires in opposition
to the Divine word? Far be it from God to follow with the aid of his
blessing, what he curses with his mouth. Lastly, if our success be not
equal to our wishes and hopes, yet we shall be restrained from impatience,
and from execrating our condition, whatever it may be; because we shall
know, that this would be murmuring against God, at whose pleasure are
dispensed riches and poverty, honour and contempt. In short, he who shall
repose himself, in the manner we have mentioned, on the Divine blessing,
will neither hunt after the objects violently coveted by men in general,
by evil methods, from which he will expect no advantage; nor will he
impute any prosperous event to himself, and to his own diligence,
industry, or good fortune; but will acknowledge God to be the author of
it. If, while the affairs of others are flourishing, he makes but a small
progress, or even moves in a retrograde direction, yet he will bear his
poverty with more equanimity and moderation, than any profane man would
feel with a mediocrity of success, which would merely be inferior to his
wishes; possessing, indeed, a consolation in which he may enjoy more
tranquil satisfaction, than in the zenith of opulence or power; because he
considers, that his affairs are ordered by the Lord in such a manner as is
conducive to his salvation. This, we see, was the disposition of David,
who, while he follows God, surrenders himself to his government, and
declares, that he is “as a child that is weaned of his mother; neither do
I exercise myself,” says he, “in great matters, or in things too high for
me.”(1839)

X. Nor is this the only instance in which pious persons should feel such
tranquillity and patience; the same state of mind ought to be extended to
all the events to which the present life is exposed. Therefore no man has
rightly renounced himself, but he who has wholly resigned himself to the
Lord, so as to leave all the parts of his life to be governed by his will.
He whose mind is thus composed, whatever may befall him, will neither
think himself miserable, nor invidiously complain against God on account
of his lot. The great necessity of this disposition will appear, if we
consider the numerous accidents to which we are subject. Diseases of
various kinds frequently attack us: at one time, the pestilence is raging;
at another, we are cruelly harassed with the calamities of war; at another
time, frost or hail, devouring the hopes of the year, produces sterility,
which brings us to penury; a wife, parents, children, or other relatives,
are snatched away by death; our dwelling is consumed by a fire; these are
the events, on the occurrence of which, men curse this life, or their
natal day, execrate heaven and earth, reproach God, and, as they are
eloquent to blaspheme, accuse him of injustice and cruelty. But it behoves
a believer, even in these events, to contemplate the clemency and truly
paternal goodness of God. Wherefore, if he sees his relatives removed, and
his house rendered a solitary place, he must not cease to bless the Lord,
but rather have recourse to this reflection: Yet the grace of the Lord,
which inhabits my house, will not leave it desolate. Or if he sees his
crops bitten or destroyed by frost, or beaten down by hail, and famine
threatening him, yet he will not sink into despondency or displeasure
against God, but will abide in this confidence—We are under the guardian
care of God, we are “the sheep of his pasture;”(1840) he therefore will
supply us with food even in seasons of the greatest barrenness. If he
shall be afflicted with disease, even then he will not be so far
discouraged by the bitterness of his pain, as to break out into
impatience, and to complain against God; but will rather strengthen his
patience by a consideration of the justice and lenity of the Divine
correction. Finally, whatever may happen, knowing it to be ordained by the
Lord, he will receive it with a placid and grateful heart, that he may not
be guilty of contumaciously resisting his authority, to whose power he has
once resigned himself and all that belongs to him. Far, therefore, from
the heart of a Christian man be that foolish and most wretched consolation
of the heathen, who, to fortify their minds against adversity, imputed it
to Fortune; with whom they esteemed it foolish to be displeased, because
she was thoughtless and rash, and blindly wounded without discrimination
the worthy and the unworthy. On the contrary, the rule of piety is, that
God alone is the arbiter and governor of all events, both prosperous and
adverse, and that he does not proceed with inconsiderate impetuosity, but
dispenses to us blessings and calamities with the most systematic justice.

Chapter VIII. Bearing The Cross, Which Is A Branch Of Self‐Denial.

But it becomes a pious mind to rise still higher, even to that to which
Christ calls his disciples; that every one should “take up his
cross.”(1841) For all whom the Lord has chosen and honoured with admission
into the society of his saints, ought to prepare themselves for a life,
hard, laborious, unquiet, and replete with numerous and various
calamities. It is the will of their heavenly Father to exercise them in
this manner, that he may have a certain proof of those that belong to him.
Having begun with Christ his first begotten Son, he pursues this method
towards all his children. For though Christ was above all others the
beloved Son, in whom the Father was always well pleased,(1842) yet we see
how little indulgence and tenderness he experienced; so that it may be
truly said, not only that he was perpetually burdened with a cross during
his residence on earth, but that his whole life was nothing but a kind of
perpetual cross. The apostle assigns the reason, that it was necessary for
him to “learn obedience by the things which he suffered.”(1843) Why, then,
should we exempt ourselves from that condition, to which it behoved Christ
our head to be subject; especially since his submission was on our
account, that he might exhibit to us an example of patience in his own
person? Wherefore the apostle teaches, that it is the destination of all
the children of God “to be conformed to him.”(1844) It is also a source of
signal consolation to us, in unpleasant and severe circumstances, which
are esteemed adversities and calamities, that we partake of the sufferings
of Christ; that as he from a labyrinth of all evils entered into the glory
of heaven, so we are conducted forward through various tribulations to the
same glory;(1845) for Paul teaches us, that when we “know the fellowship
of his sufferings,” we also apprehend “the power of his resurrection;”
that while we are conformed to his death, we are thus prepared to partake
of his glorious resurrection.(1846) How much is this adapted to alleviate
all the bitterness of the cross, that the more we are afflicted by
adversities, our fellowship with Christ is so much the more certainly
confirmed! By this communion the sufferings themselves not only become
blessings to us, but afford considerable assistance towards promoting our
salvation.

II. Besides, our Lord was under no necessity of bearing the cross, except
to testify and prove his obedience to his Father; but there are many
reasons which render it necessary for us to live under a continual cross.
First, as we are naturally too prone to attribute every thing to our
flesh, unless we have, as it were, ocular demonstration of our imbecility,
we easily form an extravagant estimate of our strength, presuming that
whatever may happen, it will remain undaunted and invincible amidst all
difficulties. This inflates us with a foolish, vain, carnal confidence;
relying on which, we become contumacious and proud, in opposition to God
himself, just as though our own powers were sufficient for us without his
grace. This arrogance he cannot better repress, than by proving to us from
experience, not only our great imbecility, but also our extreme frailty.
Therefore he afflicts us with ignominy, or poverty, or loss of relatives,
or disease, or other calamities; to the bearing of which being in
ourselves unequal, we ere long sink under them. Thus being humbled, we
learn to invoke his strength, which alone causes us to stand erect under a
load of afflictions. Moreover, the greatest saints, though sensible that
they stand by the grace of God, not by their own strength, are
nevertheless more secure than they ought to be of their fortitude and
constancy, unless he leads them by the discipline of the cross into a
deeper knowledge of themselves. This presumption insinuated itself even
into David: “In my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved; Lord, by thy
favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong. Thou didst hide thy
face, and I was troubled.”(1847) For he confesses that his senses were so
stupefied and benumbed by prosperity, that disregarding the grace of God,
on which he ought to have depended, he relied on himself, so as to promise
himself a permanent standing. If this happened to so great a prophet, who
of us should not be fearful and cautious? Though in prosperity, therefore,
they have flattered themselves with the notion of superior constancy and
patience, yet when humbled by adversity, they learn that this was mere
hypocrisy. Admonished by such evidences of their maladies, believers
advance in humility, and, divested of corrupt confidence in the flesh,
betake themselves to the grace of God; and when they have applied to it,
they experience the presence of the Divine strength, in which they find
abundant protection.

III. This is what Paul teaches, that “tribulation worketh patience, and
patience experience.”(1848) For the promise of God to believers, that he
will assist them in tribulations, they experience to be true, when they
patiently stand supported by his power, which they certainly could not do
by their own strength. Patience, therefore, affords a proof to the saints,
that God will really give the assistance he has promised in every time of
need. This also confirms their hope; for it would be too much ingratitude
not to rely on the truth of God for the future, which they have hitherto
experienced to be constant and certain. We see now what a series of
benefits we derive from the cross. For, subverting the opinion which we
have falsely preconceived of our own strength, and detecting our
hypocrisy, with which we are enamoured, it expels pernicious and carnal
confidence; when we are thus humbled, it teaches us to rely upon God
alone, which keeps us from sinking under afflictions. And victory is
followed by hope; inasmuch as the Lord, by the performance of his
promises, establishes his truth for the future. Though these were the only
reasons that could be given, they are sufficient to show the necessity of
the discipline of the cross. For it is no small advantage to be divested
of a blind self‐love, that we may be fully conscious of our imbecility; to
be affected with a sense of our imbecility, that we may learn to be
diffident of ourselves; to be diffident of ourselves, that we may transfer
our confidence to God; to depend with unreserved confidence on God, that,
relying on his assistance, we may persevere unconquered to the end; to
stand in his grace, that we may know his veracity in his promises; to
experience the certainty of his promises, that our hope may thereby be
strengthened.

IV. The Lord has also another end in afflicting his children; to try their
patience, and teach them obedience. Not, indeed, that they can perform any
other obedience to him than that which he has given them; but he is
pleased in this manner, by clear evidences, to exhibit and testify the
graces which he has conferred on his saints, that they may not be
concealed in inactivity within them. Therefore, in giving an open
manifestation of the strength and constancy in suffering, with which he
has furnished his servants, he is said to try their patience. Hence these
expressions, that “God did tempt Abraham,” and prove his piety, from the
circumstance of his not refusing to sacrifice his own and only son.(1849)
Wherefore Peter states, that our faith is tried by tribulations, just as
gold is tried by fire in a furnace.(1850) Now, who can say that it is not
necessary for this most excellent gift of patience, which a believer has
received from his God, to be brought forward into use, that it may be
ascertained and manifested? For otherwise men will never esteem it as it
deserves. But if God himself acts justly, when, to prevent the virtues
which he has conferred on believers from being concealed in obscurity and
remaining useless and perishing, he furnishes an occasion for exciting
them,—there is the best of reasons for the afflictions of the saints,
without which they would have no patience. By the cross they are also, I
say, instructed to obedience; because they are thus taught to live, not
according to their own inclination, but according to the will of God. If
every thing succeeded with them according to their wishes, they would not
know what it is to follow God. But Seneca mentions that this was an
ancient proverb, when they would exhort any one to bear adversity with
patience, “Follow God.” This implied that man submitted to the yoke of
God, only when he resigned himself to his corrections. Now, if it is most
reasonable that we should prove ourselves in all things obedient to our
heavenly Father, we certainly ought not to deny him the use of every
method to accustom us to practise this obedience.

V. Yet we do not perceive how necessary this obedience is to us, unless we
at the same time reflect on the great wantonness of our flesh to shake off
the Divine yoke, as soon as we have been treated with a little tenderness
and indulgence. The case is exactly the same as with refractory horses,
which, after having been pampered for some days in idleness, grow fierce
and untamable, and regard not the rider, to whose management they
previously submitted. And we are perpetual examples of what God complains
of in the people of Israel; when we are “waxen fat,” and are “covered with
fatness,”(1851) we kick against him who has cherished and supported us.
The beneficence of God ought to have allured us to the consideration and
love of his goodness; but since such is our ingratitude, that we are
rather constantly corrupted by his indulgence, it is highly necessary for
us to be restrained by some discipline from breaking out into such
petulance. Therefore, that we may not be made haughty by an excessive
abundance of wealth, that we may not become proud on being distinguished
with honours, that we may not be rendered insolent by being inflated with
other advantages, mental, corporeal, or external, the Lord himself, as he
foresees will be expedient, by the remedy of the cross, opposes,
restrains, and subdues the haughtiness of our flesh; and that by various
methods, adapted to promote the benefit of each individual. For we are not
all equally afflicted with the same diseases, or all in need of an equally
severe method of cure. Hence we see different persons exercised with
different kinds of crosses. But whilst the heavenly Physician, consulting
the health of all his patients, practises a milder treatment towards some,
and cures others with rougher remedies, yet he leaves no one completely
exempted, because he knows we are all diseased, without the exception of a
single individual.

VI. Moreover it is necessary that our most merciful Father should not only
prevent our infirmity for the future, but also frequently correct our past
offences, to preserve us in a course of legitimate obedience to himself.
Wherefore in every affliction we ought immediately to recollect the course
of our past life. In reviewing it, we shall certainly find that we have
committed what was deserving of such chastisement. Nevertheless the
exhortation to patience must not be principally founded on a consciousness
of sin. For the Scripture furnishes a far better consideration, when it
informs us, that in adversity “we are chastened of the Lord, that we
should not be condemned with the world.”(1852) Therefore, even in the
bitterness of tribulations, it becomes us to acknowledge the clemency and
benignity of our Father towards us; since even then he ceases not to
promote our salvation. For he afflicts, not to ruin or destroy us, but
rather to deliver us from the condemnation of the world. This idea will
lead us to what the Scripture inculcates in another place: “My son,
despise not the chastening of the Lord, neither be weary of his
correction; for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even as a father the
son in whom he delighteth.”(1853) When we recognize the rod of a father,
is it not our duty rather to show ourselves obedient and docile children,
than contumaciously to imitate desperate men, who have been hardened in
their transgressions? God loses us, unless he recalls us after our
defections from him; so that the apostle correctly remarks, “If ye be
without chastisement, then are ye bastards, and not sons.”(1854) We are
extremely perverse, therefore, if we cannot bear with him, while he
declares his benevolence towards us, and his great concern for our
salvation. The Scripture points out this difference between believers and
unbelievers; the latter, as the slaves of an inveterate and incurable
iniquity, are only rendered more wicked and obstinate by correction; the
former, like ingenuous children, are led to a salutary repentance. You
have to choose now in which number you would prefer to stand. But having
treated of this subject elsewhere, I shall conclude, contenting myself
with having thus briefly touched on it here.

VII. But it is a source of peculiar consolation when we suffer persecution
“for righteousness’ sake.”(1855) For we ought then to reflect how greatly
we are honoured by God, when he thus distinguishes us with the peculiar
characteristic of his service. I call it persecution for righteousness’
sake, not only when we suffer in defence of the gospel, but also when we
are molested in the vindication of any just cause. Whether, therefore, in
asserting the truth of God, in opposition to the falsehoods of Satan, or
in undertaking the protection of good and innocent men against the
injuries of the wicked, it be necessary for us to incur the resentment and
hatred of the world, by which our lives, our fortunes, or our reputation,
may be endangered,—let it not be grievous or irksome to us thus far to
employ ourselves in the service of God; nor let us imagine ourselves to be
miserable in those respects in which he has with his own mouth pronounced
us blessed. It is true, that poverty, considered in itself, is misery; and
the same may be said of exile, contempt, imprisonment, ignominy; finally,
death is of all calamities the last and worst. But with the favour of our
God, they are all conducive to our happiness. Let us therefore be content
with the testimony of Christ, rather than with the false opinion of the
flesh. Thus we shall rejoice, like the apostles, whenever he shall “count
us worthy to suffer shame for his name.”(1856) For if, being innocent and
conscious of our own integrity, we are stripped of our property by the
villany of the wicked, we are reduced to poverty indeed among men, but we
thereby obtain an increase of true riches with God in heaven; if we are
banished from our country, we are more intimately received into the family
of God; if we meet with vexation and contempt, we are so much the more
firmly rooted in Christ; if we are stigmatized with reproach and ignominy,
we are so much the more exalted in the kingdom of God; if we are
massacred, it opens an entrance for us into a life of blessedness. We
ought to be ashamed of setting a lower estimation on things on which the
Lord has attached such a great value, than on the shadowy and evanescent
pleasures of the present life.

VIII. Since the Scripture, therefore, by these and similar instructions,
affords abundant consolation under all the ignominy and calamity which we
sustain in the defence of righteousness, we are chargeable with extreme
ingratitude if we do not receive them from the hand of the Lord with
cheerful resignation; especially since this is the species of affliction,
or the cross, most peculiar to believers, by which Christ will be
glorified in us, according to the declaration of Peter.(1857) And
contumelious treatment being to ingenuous minds more intolerable than a
hundred deaths, Paul expressly apprizes us, that not only persecutions,
but reproaches await us, “because we trust in the living God.”(1858) As in
another place he directs us by his example to go through “evil report and
good report.”(1859) Nor are we required to exercise such a cheerfulness as
to banish all sense of bitterness and sorrow; the saints could discover no
patience under the cross, unless they were tormented with sorrow and
harassed with grief. If there were no hardship in poverty, no agony in
diseases, no distress in ignominy, no horror in death,—what fortitude or
moderation would be displayed in regarding them with absolute
indifference? But since each of these, by its own essential bitterness,
naturally preys on all our hearts, herein the fortitude of a believer is
manifested, if, when he experiences such bitterness, how grievously soever
he may be distressed by it, yet by valiantly resisting, he at length
overcomes it; his patience displays itself, if, when he is sharply
provoked, he is nevertheless restrained by the fear of God from any
eruptions of intemperance: his cheerfulness is conspicuous, if, when he is
wounded by sadness and sorrow, he is satisfied with the spiritual
consolation of God.

IX. This conflict, which believers sustain against the natural emotions of
sorrow, while they cultivate patience and moderation, Paul has beautifully
described in the following words: “We are troubled on every side, yet not
distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not
forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.”(1860) You see that patiently to
bear the cross does not consist in an absolute stupefaction and privation
of all sense of sorrow, according to the foolish description given by the
ancient Stoics of a magnanimous man, as one who, divested of the feelings
of human nature, is alike unaffected by adverse and prosperous events, by
sorrowful and joyful ones. And what advantage have they derived from this
sublime wisdom? They have depicted an image of patience, such as never has
been found, such as never can exist among men; but in their ardour for a
patience too perfect and precise, they have banished its influence from
human life. At present also among Christians there are modern Stoics, who
esteem it sinful not only to groan and weep, but even to discover sadness
and solicitude. These paradoxes generally proceed from idle men, who,
employing themselves more in speculation than in action, can produce
nothing but such paradoxical notions. But we have nothing to do with that
iron‐hearted philosophy, which our Master and Lord has condemned not only
in words, but even by his own example. For he mourned and wept both for
his own calamities and for those of others. Nor did he teach his disciples
a different conduct. “The world,” says he, “shall rejoice, but ye shall
weep and lament.”(1861) And that no man might pervert it into a crime, he
has formally pronounced a blessing on them that mourn;(1862) and no
wonder. For if all tears be reprobated, what judgment shall we form
concerning the Lord himself, from whose body distilled tears of
blood?(1863) If every terror be stigmatized with the charge of unbelief,
what character shall we attribute to that horror and consternation with
which we read that he was so violently depressed? If all sorrow be
displeasing, how can we be pleased with his confessing that his “soul” was
“sorrowful even unto death?”

X. I have thought proper to mention these things, in order to preserve
pious minds from despair; that they may not hastily renounce the study of
patience, because they cannot divest themselves of the natural affection
of sorrow. This must necessarily be the case with those who degrade
patience into insensibility, and a man of fortitude and constancy into a
senseless block. For the Scripture applauds the saints for their patience,
when they are afflicted with severe calamities, but not broken and
overcome by them; when they are bitterly distressed, but are filled at the
same time with spiritual joy; when they are oppressed with anxiety, but
are revived and exhilarated with Divine consolation. At the same time
there is that opposition in their hearts, that the feelings of nature
avoid and dread those things which they experience to be inimical to it;
but the affection of piety struggles even through these difficulties to
obey the Divine will. This opposition the Lord expressed, when he thus
addressed Peter: “When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and
walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, another shall
gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.”(1864) It is not
probable that Peter, when he was called to glorify God by his death, was
drawn to it with reluctance and resistance; in this case his martyrdom
would be entitled to little applause. But however he might submit with the
greatest alacrity of heart to the Divine appointment, yet, not having
divested himself of human nature, he was distracted by two contrary
inclinations. For when he contemplated the bloody death he was about to
undergo, stricken with a dread of it, he would gladly have escaped. On the
contrary, when he considered that he was called to it by the Divine will,
suppressing all fear, he unreluctantly and even cheerfully submitted to
it. It must be our study, therefore, if we would be the disciples of
Christ, that our minds may be imbued with so great a reverence for God,
and such an unreserved obedience to him, as may overcome all contrary
affections, and make them submit to his appointments. Thus, whatever kind
of affliction we endure, even in the greatest distresses of the mind, we
shall constantly retain our patience. For adversity itself will have its
stings, with which we shall be wounded. Thus, when afflicted with disease,
we shall groan and be disquieted, and pray for the restoration of health;
thus, when oppressed with poverty, we shall feel the stings of solicitude
and sorrow; thus we shall be affected with the grief of ignominy,
contempt, and injury; thus we shall shed the tears due to nature at the
funerals of our friends; but we shall always recur to this conclusion,
This affliction is appointed by the Lord, therefore let us submit to his
will. Even in the agonies of grief, amid groans and tears, there is a
necessity for the intervention of this reflection, in order to incline the
heart cheerfully to bear those things by which it is so affected.

XI. But as we have deduced the principal reason for bearing the cross from
a consideration of the Divine will, we must briefly point out the
difference between philosophical and Christian patience. For very few of
the philosophers have risen to such an eminence of reason, as to perceive
that we are exercised with afflictions by the Divine hand, and to conclude
that God ought to be obeyed in these occurrences; and even those who have
gone to this length, adduce no other reason, than because it is necessary.
What is this but saying, that we must submit to God, because it were in
vain to contend against him? For if we obey God only from necessity, if it
were possible to escape from him, our obedience would cease. But the
Scripture enjoins us to consider the Divine will in a very different point
of view; first, as consistent with justice and equity; secondly, as
directed to the accomplishment of our salvation. Christian exhortations to
patience, then, are such as these: Whether we are afflicted with poverty,
or exile, or imprisonment, or reproach, or disease, or loss of relatives,
or any other similar calamity, we must reflect that none of these things
happen without the appointment and providence of God; and, moreover, that
he does nothing but with the most systematic justice. Do not our
innumerable and daily transgressions deserve more severe and grievous
chastisements than those which his clemency inflicts on us? Is it not
highly reasonable that our flesh should be subdued, and as it were
accustomed to the yoke, lest it should break out, according to its
propensities, into lawless excesses? Are not the righteousness and truth
of God worthy of our labours on their account? But if the equity of God
evidently appears in our afflictions, we cannot without iniquity either
murmur or resist. We no longer hear that frigid maxim of the philosophers,
We must submit to necessity; but a lesson lively and full of efficacy, We
must obey, because it is unlawful to resist: we must patiently suffer,
because impatience is a rebellious opposition to the justice of God.
Because nothing is really amiable to us but what we know to be conducive
to our benefit and salvation, our most merciful Father affords us
consolation also in this respect, by declaring, that even in afflicting us
with the cross, he promotes our salvation. But if it be evident that
tribulations are salutary for us, why should we not endure them with
grateful and placid hearts? In patiently bearing them, therefore, we do
not submit to necessity, but acquiesce in our own benefit. The effect of
these considerations is, that in proportion as our minds are oppressed
under the cross with the natural sense of affliction, so greatly are they
dilated with spiritual joy. This is attended also by thanksgiving, which
cannot be without joy. But if praise and thanksgiving to the Lord can only
proceed from a cheerful and joyful heart,—and there is nothing which ought
to repress these emotions within us,—this shows how necessary it is that
the bitterness of the cross should be tempered with spiritual joy.

Chapter IX. Meditation On The Future Life.

With whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always
keep this end in view—to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present
life, that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to
come. For the Lord, well knowing our strong natural inclination to a
brutish love of the world, adopts a most excellent method to reclaim us
and rouse us from our insensibility, that we may not be too tenaciously
attached to that foolish affection. There is not one of us who is not
desirous of appearing, through the whole course of his life, to aspire and
strive after celestial immortality. For we are ashamed of excelling in no
respect the brutal herds, whose condition would not be at all inferior to
ours, unless there remained to us a hope of eternity after death. But if
you examine the designs, pursuits, and actions of every individual, you
will find nothing in them but what is terrestrial. Hence that stupidity,
that the mental eyes, dazzled with the vain splendour of riches, power,
and honours, cannot see to any considerable distance. The heart also,
occupied and oppressed with avarice, ambition, and other inordinate
desires, cannot rise to any eminence. In a word, the whole soul,
fascinated by carnal allurements, seeks its felicity on earth. To oppose
this evil, the Lord, by continual lessons of miseries, teaches his
children the vanity of the present life. That they may not promise
themselves profound and secure peace in it, therefore he permits them to
be frequently disquieted and infested with wars or tumults, with robberies
or other injuries. That they may not aspire with too much avidity after
transient and uncertain riches, or depend on those which they
possess,—sometimes by exile, sometimes by the sterility of the land,
sometimes by a conflagration, sometimes by other means, he reduces them to
indigence, or at least confines them within the limits of mediocrity. That
they may not be too complacently delighted with conjugal blessings, he
either causes them to be distressed with the wickedness of their wives, or
humbles them with a wicked offspring, or afflicts them with want or loss
of children. But if in all these things he is more indulgent to them, yet
that they may not be inflated with vain glory, or improper confidence, he
shows them by diseases and dangers the unstable and transitory nature of
all mortal blessings. We therefore truly derive advantage from the
discipline of the cross, only when we learn that this life, considered in
itself, is unquiet, turbulent, miserable in numberless instances, and in
no respect altogether happy; and that all its reputed blessings are
uncertain, transient, vain, and adulterated with a mixture of many evils;
and in consequence of this at once conclude, that nothing can be sought or
expected on earth but conflict, and that when we think of a crown we must
raise our eyes towards heaven. For it must be admitted, that the mind is
never seriously excited to desire and meditate on the future life, without
having previously imbibed a contempt of the present.

II. There is no medium between these two extremes; either the earth must
become vile in our estimation, or it must retain our immoderate love.
Wherefore, if we have any concern about eternity, we must use our most
diligent efforts to extricate ourselves from these fetters. Now, since the
present life has numerous blandishments to attract us, and much pleasure,
beauty, and sweetness to delight us,—it is very necessary to our highest
interests, that we should be frequently called off, that we may not be
fascinated with such allurements. For what would be the consequence, if we
were perpetually happy in the enjoyment of the blessings of this life;
since we cannot, even by the incessant stimulus of calamity after
calamity, be sufficiently aroused to a consideration of its misery? That
human life is like a vapour or a shadow, is not only known to the learned,
but even the vulgar have no proverb more common; and perceiving it to be a
thing the knowledge of which would be eminently useful, they have
represented it in many remarkable sentences. But there is scarcely any
thing which we more carelessly consider, or sooner forget; for we
undertake every thing as though we were erecting for ourselves an
immortality on earth. If a funeral pass by, or we walk among the tombs,
because the image of death is then presented to our eyes, we philosophize,
I confess, in an admirable manner concerning the vanity of the present
life; although even that is not always the case, for frequently we are
quite unaffected with all these things. But when this effect is produced,
our philosophy is momentary, vanishing as soon as we withdraw, and leaving
not even the smallest vestige behind it; in short, it passes away, and is
forgotten just like the plaudits of a theatre at any entertaining
exhibition. And forgetting not only death, but mortality itself, as though
no rumour concerning it had ever reached us, we relapse into a supine
security of immortality on earth. If any one, in the mean time, reminds us
of the unwelcome proverb, that man is a creature of a day, we acknowledge
the truth of it indeed, but with such inattention that the idea of
perpetually living here still remains fixed in our minds. Who, then, can
deny, that it is highly useful to us all, I do not say to be admonished by
words, but by every possible evidence to be convinced, of the miserable
condition of the present life; since even after we are convinced of it, we
scarcely cease to be besotted with a perverse and foolish admiration of
it, as though it contained the greatest attainable blessings? But if it be
necessary for God to instruct us, it is, on the other hand, our duty to
listen to him when he calls, and rebukes our sluggishness; in order that,
despising the world, we may apply ourselves with our whole heart to
meditate on the life which is to come.

III. But believers should accustom themselves to such a contempt of the
present life, as may not generate either hatred of life, or ingratitude
towards God. For this life, though it is replete with innumerable
miseries, is yet deservedly reckoned among the Divine blessings which must
not be despised. Wherefore, if we discover nothing of the Divine
beneficence in it, we are already guilty of no small ingratitude towards
God himself. But to believers especially it should be a testimony of the
Divine benevolence, since the whole of it is destined to the advancement
of their salvation. For before he openly discovers to us the inheritance
of eternal glory, he intends to reveal himself as our Father in inferior
instances; and those are the benefits which he daily confers on us. Since
this life, then, is subservient to a knowledge of the Divine goodness,
shall we fastidiously scorn it, as though it contained no particle of
goodness in it? We must therefore have this sense and affection, to class
it among the bounties of the Divine benignity which are not to be
rejected. For if Scripture testimonies were wanting, which are very
numerous and clear, even nature itself exhorts us to give thanks to the
Lord for having introduced us to the light of life, for granting us the
use of it, and giving us all the helps necessary to its preservation. And
it is a far superior reason for gratitude, if we consider that here we are
in some measure prepared for the glory of the heavenly kingdom. For the
Lord has ordained, that they who are to be hereafter crowned in heaven,
must first engage in conflicts on earth, that they may not triumph without
having surmounted the difficulties of warfare and obtained the victory.
Another reason is, that here we begin in various blessings to taste the
sweetness of the Divine benignity, that our hope and desire may be excited
after the full revelation of it. When we have come to this conclusion,
that our life in this world is a gift of the Divine clemency, which, as we
owe to him, we ought to remember with gratitude, it will then be time for
us to descend to a consideration of its most miserable condition, that we
may be delivered from excessive love of it, to which, as has been
observed, we are naturally inclined.

IV. Now, whatever is abstracted from the corrupt love of this life should
be added to the desire of a better. I grant, indeed, the correctness of
their opinion, who considered it as the greatest blessing not to be born,
and as the next, to die immediately. For, being heathens, destitute of the
knowledge of God and of true religion, what could they see in it but
unhappiness and misery? Nor was there any thing irrational in the conduct
of those who mourned and wept at the births of their relations, and
solemnly rejoiced at their funerals. But they practised this without any
advantage; for, destitute of the true doctrine of faith, they did not
perceive how that can conduce to the benefit of the pious, which in itself
is neither blessed nor desirable; and so their views terminated in
despair. It should be the object of believers, therefore, in judging of
this mortal life, that understanding it to be of itself nothing but
misery, they may apply themselves wholly, with increasing cheerfulness and
readiness, to meditate on the future and eternal life. When we come to
this comparison, then indeed the former may be not only securely
neglected, but, in competition with the latter, altogether despised and
abhorred. For if heaven is our country, what is the earth but a place of
exile? If the departure out of the world is an entrance into life, what is
the world but a sepulchre? What is a continuance in it but an absorption
in death? If deliverance from the body is an introduction into complete
liberty, what is the body but a prison? If to enjoy the presence of God is
the summit of felicity, is it not misery to be destitute of it? But till
we escape out of the world, “we are absent from the Lord.”(1865)
Therefore, if the terrestrial life be compared with the celestial, it
should undoubtedly be despised and accounted of no value. It certainly is
never to be hated, except in as much as it keeps us obnoxious to sin;
although even that hatred is not properly to be applied to life itself. It
becomes us, however, to be so affected with weariness or hatred of it, as
to desire its end, but to be also prepared to remain in it during the
Divine pleasure; that is to say, our weariness should be remote from all
murmuring and impatience. For it is a post at which the Lord has placed
us, to be retained by us till he call us away. Paul, indeed, bewails his
lot, that he is kept in bondage by the fetters of the body longer than he
would wish, and sighs with an ardent desire of deliverance;(1866)
nevertheless, obedient to the Divine authority, he professes himself
prepared for both; for he acknowledges himself under an obligation to God
to glorify his name either by life or by death;(1867) but that it belongs
to the Lord to determine what will conduce most to his glory. Therefore,
if it becomes us “to live and to die to the Lord,”(1868) let us leave the
limits of our life and death to his decision; yet in such a manner, as
ardently to desire and continually to meditate on the latter, but to
despise the former in comparison with future immortality, and on account
of the servitude of sin, to wish to forsake it whenever it shall please
the Lord.

V. But it is monstrous, that instead of this desire of death, multitudes
who boast themselves to be Christians, are filled with such a dread of it,
that they tremble whenever it is mentioned, as if it were the greatest
calamity that could befall them. It is no wonder, indeed, if our natural
feelings should be alarmed at hearing of our dissolution. But it is
intolerable that there should not be in a Christian breast sufficient
light of piety to overcome and suppress all that fear with superior
consolation. For if we consider, that this unstable, depraved,
corruptible, frail, withering, and rotten tabernacle of our body is
dissolved, in order that it may hereafter be restored to a durable,
perfect, incorruptible, and heavenly glory,—will not faith constrain us
ardently to desire what nature dreads? If we consider, that by death we
are recalled from exile to inhabit our own country, and that a heavenly
one, shall we derive thence no consolation? But it will be said, There is
nothing that does not desire to be permanent. I admit it; and contend that
we ought therefore to direct our views to a future immortality, where we
may obtain a fixed condition, which is nowhere to be found on earth. For
Paul excellently teaches believers to go with alacrity to death, “not for
that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.”(1869) Shall brute
animals, and even inanimate creatures, down to stocks and stones,
conscious of their present vanity, be looking forward to the resurrection
at the last day, that they may be delivered from vanity, together with the
children of God; and shall we, endued with the light of understanding,
and, what is superior to the natural understanding, illuminated with the
Spirit of God, when the question respects our own existence, not raise our
minds above the corruption of this world? But it is not necessary to my
present design, nor suitable in this place, to argue against such extreme
perverseness. And I have already declared in the beginning, that I would
not undertake a diffuse discussion of commonplace topics. I would persuade
such timid minds to read Cyprian’s treatise on Mortality, did they not
deserve rather to be referred to the philosophers, that they may begin to
blush, when they see the contempt of death discovered by them. But this we
may positively conclude, that no man has made any good proficiency in the
school of Christ, but he who joyfully expects both the day of death and
that of the final resurrection. For Paul describes all believers by this
character,(1870) and the Scripture often recalls our attention to it, when
it intends to furnish us with a reason for true joy. “Look up,” saith the
Lord, “and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”(1871) Is
it reasonable, that what he designed so powerfully to excite us to
exultation and alacrity, should produce nothing but sorrow and
consternation? If this be the case, why do we still glory in him as our
Master? Let us therefore acquire a sounder judgment; and notwithstanding
the opposition of the blind and stupid cupidity of our flesh, let us not
hesitate ardently to desire the advent of the Lord, as of all events the
most auspicious. For he shall come to us as a Redeemer, to deliver us from
this bottomless gulf of all evils and miseries, and introduce us into that
blessed inheritance of his life and glory.

VI. It is certainly true, that the whole family of believers, as long as
they dwell on the earth, must be “accounted as sheep for the
slaughter,”(1872) that they may be conformed to Christ their Head. Their
state, therefore, would be extremely deplorable, if they did not elevate
their thoughts towards heaven, rise above all sublunary things, and look
beyond present appearances.(1873) On the contrary, when they have once
raised their heads above this world, although they see the impious
flourishing in riches and honours, and enjoying the most profound
tranquillity; though they see them boasting of their splendour and luxury,
and behold them abounding in every delight; though they may also be
harassed by their wickedness, insulted by their pride, defrauded by their
avarice, and may receive from them any other lawless provocations,—yet
they will find no difficulty in supporting themselves even under such
calamities as these. For they will keep in view that day when the Lord
will receive his faithful servants into his peaceful kingdom; will wipe
every tear from their eyes,(1874) invest them with robes of joy, adorn
them with crowns of glory, entertain them with his ineffable delights,
exalt them to fellowship with his majesty, and, in a word, honour them
with a participation of his happiness. But the impious, who have been
great in this world, he will precipitate down to the lowest ignominy; he
will change their delights into torments, and their laughter and mirth
into weeping and gnashing of teeth; he will disturb their tranquillity
with dreadful agonies of conscience, and will punish their delicacy with
inextinguishable fire, and even put them in subjection to the pious, whose
patience they have abused. For, according to Paul, “it is a righteous
thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble” the saints,
“and to” them “who are troubled, rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven.”(1875) This is our only consolation; and deprived of
this, we must of necessity either sink into despondency of mind, or solace
ourselves to our own destruction with the vain pleasures of the world. For
even the Psalmist confesses that he staggered,(1876) when he was too much
engaged in contemplating the present prosperity of the impious; and that
he could no otherwise establish himself, till he entered the sanctuary of
God, and directed his views to the last end of the godly and of the
wicked. To conclude in one word, the cross of Christ triumphs, in the
hearts of believers, over the devil and the flesh, over sin and impious
men, only when their eyes are directed to the power of the resurrection.

Chapter X. The Right Use Of The Present Life And Its Supports.

By such principles, the Scripture also fully instructs us in the right use
of terrestrial blessings—a thing that ought not to be neglected in a plan
for the regulation of life. For if we must live, we must also use the
necessary supports of life; nor can we avoid even those things which
appear to subserve our pleasures rather than our necessities. It behooves
us, therefore, to observe moderation, that we may use them with a pure
conscience, whether for necessity or for pleasure. This the Lord
prescribes in his word, when he teaches us, that to his servants the
present life is like a pilgrimage, in which they are travelling towards
the celestial kingdom. If we are only to pass through the earth, we ought
undoubtedly to make such a use of its blessings as will rather assist than
retard us in our journey. It is not without reason, therefore, that Paul
advises us to use this world as though we used it not, and to buy with the
same disposition with which we sell.(1877) But as this is a difficult
subject, and there is danger of falling into one of two opposite errors,
let us endeavour to proceed on safe ground, that we may avoid both
extremes. For there have been some, in other respects good and holy men,
who, seeing that intemperance and luxury, unless restrained with more than
ordinary severity, would perpetually indulge the most extravagant
excesses, and desiring to correct such a pernicious evil, have adopted the
only method which occurred to them, by permitting men to use corporeal
blessings no further than their necessity should absolutely require. This
advice was well intended, but they were far too austere. For they
committed the very dangerous error of imposing on the conscience stricter
rules than those which are prescribed to it by the word of the Lord. By
restriction within the demands of necessity, they meant an abstinence from
every thing from which it is possible to abstain; so that, according to
them, it would scarcely be lawful to eat or drink any thing but bread and
water. Others have discovered still greater austerity, like Crates the
Theban, who is said to have thrown his wealth into the sea, from an
apprehension that, unless it were destroyed, he should himself be
destroyed by it. On the contrary, many in the present day, who seek a
pretext to excuse intemperance in the use of external things, and at the
same time desire to indulge the licentiousness of the flesh, assume as
granted, what I by no means concede to them, that this liberty is not to
be restricted by any limitation; but that it ought to be left to the
conscience of every individual to use as much as he thinks lawful for
himself. I grant, indeed, that it is neither right nor possible to bind
the conscience with the fixed and precise rules of law in this case; but
since the Scripture delivers general rules for the lawful use of earthly
things, our practice ought certainly to be regulated by them.

II. It must be laid down as a principle, that the use of the gifts of God
is not erroneous, when it is directed to the same end for which the
Creator himself has created and appointed them for us; since he has
created them for our benefit, not for our injury. Wherefore, no one will
observe a more proper rule, than he who shall diligently regard this end.
Now, if we consider for what end he has created the various kinds of
aliment, we shall find that he intended to provide not only for our
necessity, but likewise for our pleasure and delight. So in clothing, he
has had in view not mere necessity, but propriety and decency. In herbs,
trees, and fruits, beside their various uses, his design has been to
gratify us by graceful forms and pleasant odours. For if this were not
true, the Psalmist would not recount among the Divine blessings, “wine
that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to
shine;”(1878) nor would the Scriptures universally declare, in
commendation of his goodness, that he has given all these things to men.
And even the natural properties of things sufficiently indicate for what
end, and to what extent, it is lawful to use them. But shall the Lord have
endued flowers with such beauty, to present itself to our eyes, with such
sweetness of smell, to impress our sense of smelling; and shall it be
unlawful for our eyes to be affected with the beautiful sight, or our
olfactory nerves with the agreeable odour? What! has he not made such a
distinction of colours as to render some more agreeable than others? Has
he not given to gold and silver, to ivory and marble, a beauty which makes
them more precious than other metals or stones? In a word, has he not made
many things worthy of our estimation, independently of any necessary use?

III. Let us discard, therefore, that inhuman philosophy which, allowing no
use of the creatures but what is absolutely necessary, not only
malignantly deprives us of the lawful enjoyment of the Divine beneficence,
but which cannot be embraced till it has despoiled man of all his senses,
and reduced him to a senseless block. But, on the other hand, we must,
with equal diligence, oppose the licentiousness of the flesh; which,
unless it be rigidly restrained, transgresses every bound. And, as I have
observed, it has its advocates, who, under the pretext of liberty, allow
it every thing. In the first place, it will be one check to it, if it be
concluded, that all things are made for us, in order that we may know and
acknowledge their Author, and celebrate his goodness towards us by giving
him thanks. What will become of thanksgiving, if you overcharge yourself
with dainties or wine, so as to be stupefied or rendered unfit for the
duties of piety and the business of your station? Where is any
acknowledgment of God, if your body, in consequence of excessive
abundance, being inflamed with the vilest passions, infects the mind with
its impurity, so that you cannot discern what is right or virtuous? Where
is gratitude towards God for clothing, if, on account of our sumptuous
apparel, we admire ourselves and despise others? if with the elegance and
beauty of it, we prepare ourselves for unchastity? Where is our
acknowledgment of God, if our minds be fixed on the splendour of our
garments? For many so entirely devote all their senses to the pursuit of
pleasure, that the mind is, as it were, buried in it; many are so
delighted with marble, gold, and pictures, that they become like statues,
are, as it were, metamorphosed into metal, and resemble painted images.
The flavour of meats, or the sweetness of odours, so stupefies some, that
they have no relish for any thing spiritual. The same may be observed in
other cases. Wherefore it is evident, that this principle lays some
restraint on the license of abusing the Divine bounties, and confirms the
rule given us by Paul, that we “make not provision for the flesh, to
fulfil the lusts thereof;”(1879) which, if they are allowed too much
latitude, will transgress all the bounds of temperance and moderation.

IV. But there is no way more certain or concise, than what we derive from
a contempt of the present life, and meditation on a heavenly immortality.
For thence follow two rules. The first is, “that they that have wives be
as though they had none; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
and they that use this world, as not abusing it;”(1880) according to the
direction of Paul: the second, that we should learn to bear penury with
tranquillity and patience, as well as to enjoy abundance with moderation.
He who commands us to use this world as though we used it not, prohibits
not only all intemperance in eating and drinking, and excessive delicacy,
ambition, pride, haughtiness, and fastidiousness in our furniture, our
habitations, and our apparel, but every care and affection, which would
either seduce or disturb us from thoughts of the heavenly life, and
attention to the improvement of our souls. Now, it was anciently and truly
observed by Cato, That there is a great concern about adorning the body,
and a great carelessness about virtue; and it is an old proverb, That they
who are much engaged in the care of the body, are generally negligent of
the soul. Therefore, though the liberty of believers in external things
cannot be reduced to certain rules, yet it is evidently subject to this
law, That they should indulge themselves as little as possible; that, on
the contrary, they should perpetually and resolutely exert themselves to
retrench all superfluities and to restrain luxury; and that they should
diligently beware lest they pervert into impediments things which were
given for their assistance.

V. The other rule will be, That persons whose property is small should
learn to be patient under their privations, that they may not be tormented
with an immoderate desire of riches. They who observe this moderation,
have attained no small proficiency in the school of the Lord, as he who
has made no proficiency in this point can scarcely give any proof of his
being a disciple of Christ. For besides that an inordinate desire of
earthly things is accompanied by most other vices, he who is impatient
under penury, in abundance generally betrays the opposite passion. By this
I mean, that he who is ashamed of a mean garment, will be proud of a
splendid one; he who, not content with a slender meal, is disquieted with
the desire of a more sumptuous one, would also intemperately abuse those
dainties, should they fall to his lot; he who bears a private and mean
condition with discontent and disquietude, would not abstain from pride
and arrogance, should he rise to eminence and honours. Let all, therefore,
who are sincere in the practice of piety, earnestly endeavour to learn,
after the apostolic example, “both to be full and to be hungry, both to
abound and to suffer need.”(1881) The Scripture has also a third rule, by
which it regulates the use of earthly things; of which something was said,
when we treated of the precepts of charity. For it states, that while all
these things are given to us by the Divine goodness, and appointed for our
benefit, they are, as it were, deposits intrusted to our care, of which we
must one day give an account. We ought, therefore, to manage them in such
a manner that this alarm may be incessantly sounding in our ears, “Give an
account of thy stewardship.”(1882) Let it also be remembered by whom this
account is demanded; that it is by him who has so highly recommended
abstinence, sobriety, frugality, and modesty; who abhors profusion, pride,
ostentation, and vanity; who approves of no other management of his
blessings, than such as is connected with charity; who has with his own
mouth already condemned all those pleasures which seduce the heart from
chastity and purity, or tend to impair the understanding.

VI. Lastly, it is to be remarked, that the Lord commands every one of us,
in all the actions of life, to regard his vocation. For he knows with what
great inquietude the human mind is inflamed, with what desultory levity it
is hurried hither and thither, and how insatiable is its ambition to grasp
different things at once. Therefore, to prevent universal confusion being
produced by our folly and temerity, he has appointed to all their
particular duties in different spheres of life. And that no one might
rashly transgress the limits prescribed, he has styled such spheres of
life vocations, or callings. Every individual’s line of life, therefore,
is, as it were, a post assigned him by the Lord, that he may not wander
about in uncertainty all his days. And so necessary is this distinction,
that in his sight all our actions are estimated according to it, and often
very differently from the sentence of human reason and philosophy. There
is no exploit esteemed more honourable, even among philosophers, than to
deliver our country from tyranny; but the voice of the celestial Judge
openly condemns the private man who lays violent hands on a tyrant. It is
not my design, however, to stay to enumerate examples. It is sufficient if
we know that the principle and foundation of right conduct in every case
is the vocation of the Lord, and that he who disregards it will never keep
the right way in the duties of his station. He may sometimes, perhaps,
achieve something apparently laudable; but however it may appear in the
eyes of men, it will be rejected at the throne of God; besides which,
there will be no consistency between the various parts of his life. Our
life, therefore, will then be best regulated, when it is directed to this
mark; since no one will be impelled by his own temerity to attempt more
than is compatible with his calling, because he will know that it is
unlawful to transgress the bounds assigned him. He that is in obscurity
will lead a private life without discontent, so as not to desert the
station in which God has placed him. It will also be no small alleviation
of his cares, labours, troubles, and other burdens, when a man knows that
in all these things he has God for his guide. The magistrate will execute
his office with greater pleasure, the father of a family will confine
himself to his duty with more satisfaction, and all, in their respective
spheres of life, will bear and surmount the inconveniences, cares,
disappointments, and anxieties which befall them, when they shall be
persuaded that every individual has his burden laid upon him by God. Hence
also will arise peculiar consolation, since there will be no employment so
mean and sordid (provided we follow our vocation) as not to appear truly
respectable, and be deemed highly important in the sight of God.

Chapter XI. Justification By Faith. The Name And Thing Defined.

I think I have already explained, with sufficient care, how that men,
being subject to the curse of the law, have no means left of attaining
salvation but through faith alone; and also what faith itself is, what
Divine blessings it confers on man, and what effects it produces in him.
The substance of what I have advanced is, that Christ, being given to us
by the goodness of God, is apprehended and possessed by us by faith, by a
participation of whom we receive especially two benefits. In the first
place, being by his innocence reconciled to God, we have in heaven a
propitious father instead of a judge; in the next place, being sanctified
by his Spirit, we devote ourselves to innocence and purity of life. Of
regeneration, which is the second benefit, I have said what I thought was
sufficient. The method of justification has been but slightly touched,
because it was necessary, first to understand that the faith, by which
alone we attain gratuitous justification through the Divine mercy, is not
unattended with good works, and what is the nature of the good works of
the saints, in which part of this question consists. The subject of
justification, therefore, must now be fully discussed, and discussed with
the recollection that it is the principal hinge by which religion is
supported, in order that we may apply to it with the greater attention and
care. For unless we first of all apprehend in what situation we stand with
respect to God, and what his judgment is concerning us, we have no
foundation either for a certainty of salvation, or for the exercise of
piety towards God. But the necessity of knowing this subject will be more
evident from the knowledge itself.

II. But that we may not stumble at the threshold, (which would be the case
were we to enter on a disputation concerning a subject not understood by
us,) let us first explain the meaning of these expressions. _To be
justified in the sight of God, To be justified by faith or by works._ He
is said to be _justified in the sight of God_ who in the Divine judgment
is reputed righteous, and accepted on account of his righteousness; for as
iniquity is abominable to God, so no sinner can find favour in his sight,
as a sinner, or so long as he is considered as such. Wherever sin is,
therefore, it is accompanied with the wrath and vengeance of God. He is
justified who is considered not as a sinner, but as a righteous person,
and on that account stands in safety before the tribunal of God, where all
sinners are confounded and ruined. As, if an innocent man be brought under
an accusation before the tribunal of a just judge, when judgment is passed
according to his innocence, he is said to be justified or acquitted before
the judge, so he is justified before God, who, not being numbered among
sinners, has God for a witness and asserter of his righteousness. Thus he
must be said, therefore, to be _justified by works_, whose life discovers
such purity and holiness, as to deserve the character of righteousness
before the throne of God; or who, by the integrity of his works, can
answer and satisfy the divine judgment. On the other hand, he will be
_justified by faith_, who, being excluded from the righteousness of works,
apprehends by faith the righteousness of Christ, invested in which, he
appears, in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as a righteous man.
Thus we simply explain justification to be an acceptance, by which God
receives us into his favour, and esteems us as righteous persons; and we
say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ.

III. For the confirmation of this point there are many plain testimonies
of Scripture. In the first place, that this is the proper and most usual
signification of the word, cannot be denied. But since it would be too
tedious to collect all the passages and compare them together, let it
suffice to have suggested it to the reader; for he will easily observe it
of himself. I will only produce a few places, where this justification,
which we speak of, is expressly handled. First, where Luke relates that
“the people that heard Christ justified God;” and where Christ pronounces
that “wisdom is justified of all her children.”(1883) _To justify God_, in
the former passage, does not signify to confer righteousness, which always
remains perfect in him, although the whole world endeavour to rob him of
it; nor, in the latter passage, does _the justifying of wisdom_ denote
making the doctrine of salvation righteous, which is so of itself; but
both passages imply an ascription to God and to his doctrine of the praise
which they deserve. Again, when Christ reprehends the Pharisees for
“justifying themselves,”(1884) he does not mean that they attained
righteousness by doing what was right, but that they ostentatiously
endeavoured to gain the character of righteousness, of which they were
destitute. This is better understood by persons who are skilled in the
Hebrew language; which gives the appellation of _sinners_, not only to
those who are conscious to themselves of sin, but to persons who fall
under a sentence of condemnation. For Bathsheba, when she says, “I and my
son Solomon shall be counted offenders,” or sinners,(1885) confesses no
crime, but complains, that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace
of being numbered among condemned criminals. And it appears from the
context, that this word, even in the translation, cannot be understood in
any other than a relative sense, and that it does not denote the real
character. But with respect to the present subject, where Paul says, “The
Scripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen through faith,”(1886)
what can we understand, but that God imputes righteousness through faith?
Again, when he says that God “justifieth the ungodly which believeth in
Jesus,”(1887) what can be the meaning, but that he delivers him by the
blessing of faith from the condemnation deserved by his ungodliness? He
speaks still more plainly in the conclusion, when he thus exclaims: “Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather,
that is risen again, who also maketh intercession for us.”(1888) For it is
just as if he had said, Who shall accuse them whom God absolves? Who shall
condemn those for whom Christ intercedes? Justification, therefore, is no
other than an acquittal from guilt of him who was accused, as though his
innocence had been proved. Since God, therefore, justifies us through the
mediation of Christ, he acquits us, not by an admission of our personal
innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness; so that we, who are
unrighteous in ourselves, are considered as righteous in Christ. This is
the doctrine preached by Paul in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts:
“Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him
all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be
justified by the law of Moses.”(1889) We see that after remission of sins,
this justification is mentioned, as if by way of explanation: we see
clearly that it means an acquittal; that it is separated from the works of
the law; that it is a mere favour of Christ; that it is apprehended by
faith: we see, finally, the interposition of a satisfaction, when he says
that we are justified from sins by Christ. Thus, when it is said, that the
publican “went down to his house justified,”(1890) we cannot say that he
obtained righteousness by any merit of works. The meaning therefore is,
that after he had obtained the pardon of his sins, he was considered as
righteous in the sight of God. He was righteous, therefore, not through
any approbation of his works, but through God’s gracious absolution.
Wherefore Ambrose beautifully styles confession of sins, a legitimate
justification.

IV. But leaving all contention about the term, if we attend to the thing
itself, as it is described to us, every doubt will be removed. For Paul
certainly describes justification as an acceptance, when he says to the
Ephesians, “God hath predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the
praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted.”(1891)
The meaning of this passage is the same as when in another place we are
said to be “justified freely by his grace.”(1892) But in the fourth
chapter to the Romans, he first mentions an imputation of righteousness,
and immediately represents it as consisting in remission of sins. “David,”
says he, “describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven,” &c.(1893) He there, indeed, argues not concerning a branch, but
the whole of justification. He also adduces the definition of it given by
David, when he pronounces them to be blessed who receive the free
forgiveness of their sins; whence it appears, that this righteousness of
which he speaks is simply opposed to guilt. But the most decisive passage
of all on this point, is where he teaches us that the grand object of the
ministry of the gospel is, that we may “be reconciled to God,” because he
is pleased to receive us into his favour through Christ, “not imputing”
our “trespasses unto” us.(1894) Let the reader carefully examine the whole
context; for when, by way of explanation, he just after adds, in order to
describe the method of reconciliation, that Christ, “who knew no sin,” was
“made sin for us,”(1895) he undoubtedly means by the term
“reconciliation,” no other than justification. Nor would there be any
truth in what he affirms in another place, that we are “made righteous by
the obedience of Christ,”(1896) unless we are reputed righteous before
God, in him, and out of ourselves.

V. But since Osiander has introduced I know not what monstrous notion of
essential righteousness, by which, though he had no intention to destroy
justification by grace, yet he has involved it in such obscurity as
darkens pious minds, and deprives them of a serious sense of the grace of
Christ,—it will be worth while, before I pass to any thing else, to refute
this idle notion. In the first place, this speculation is the mere fruit
of insatiable curiosity. He accumulates, indeed, many testimonies of
Scripture, to prove that Christ is one with us, and we one with him, of
which there is no proof necessary; but for want of observing the bond of
this union, he bewilders himself. For us, however, who hold that we are
united to Christ by the secret energy of his Spirit, it will be easy to
obviate all his sophisms. He had conceived a notion similar to what was
held by the Manichæans, so that he wished to transfuse the Divine essence
into men. Hence another discovery of his, that Adam was formed in the
image of God, because, even antecedently to the fall, Christ had been
appointed the exemplar of the human nature. But for the sake of brevity, I
shall only insist on the subject now before us. He says that we are one
with Christ. This we admit; but we at the same time deny that Christ’s
essence is blended with ours. In the next place, we assert that this
principle—that Christ is our righteousness because he is the eternal God,
the fountain of righteousness, and the essential righteousness of God—is
grossly perverted to support his fallacies. The reader will excuse me, if
I now just hint at these things, which the order of the treatise requires
to be deferred to another place. But though he alleges, in vindication of
himself, that by the term _essential righteousness_ he only intends to
oppose the opinion that we are reputed righteous for the sake of Christ,
yet he manifestly shows, that, not content with that righteousness which
has been procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ,
he imagines that we are substantially righteous in God, by the infusion of
his essence as well as his character. For this is the reason why he so
vehemently contends, that not only Christ, but the Father and the Holy
Spirit also dwell in us; which, though I allow it to be a truth, yet I
maintain that he has grossly perverted. For he ought to have fully
considered the nature of this inhabitation; namely, that the Father and
the Spirit are in Christ; and that as “all the fulness of the Godhead
dwelleth in him,”(1897) so in him we possess the whole Deity. Whatever,
therefore, he advances concerning the Father and the Spirit separately,
has no other tendency but to seduce the simple from Christ. In the next
place, he introduces a mixture of substances, by which God, transfusing
himself into us, makes us, as it were, a part of himself. For he considers
it as of no importance, that the power of the Holy Spirit unites us to
Christ, so that he becomes our head and we become his members, unless his
essence be blended with ours. But when speaking of the Father and the
Spirit, he more openly betrays his opinion; which is, that we are not
justified by the sole grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not
simply or really offered to us in his person; but that we are made
partakers of the Divine righteousness when God is essentially united with
us.

VI. If he had only said, that Christ in justifying us becomes ours by an
essential union, and that he is our head not only as man, but that the
essence of his Divine nature also is infused into us,—he might have
entertained himself with his fancies with less mischief, nor perhaps would
so great a contention have been excited about this reverie. But as this
principle is like a cuttlefish, which, by the emission of black and turbid
blood, conceals its many tails, there is a necessity for a vigorous
opposition to it, unless we mean to submit to be openly robbed of that
righteousness which alone affords us any confidence concerning our
salvation. For throughout this discussion, the terms _righteousness_ and
_justify_ are extended by him to two things. First, he understands that
“to be justified” denotes not only to be reconciled to God by a free
pardon, but also to be made righteous; and that righteousness is not a
gratuitous imputation, but a sanctity and integrity inspired by the Divine
essence which resides in us. Secondly, he resolutely denies that Christ is
our righteousness, as having, in the character of a priest, expiated our
sins and appeased the Father on our behalf, but as being the eternal God
and everlasting life. To prove the first assertion, that God justifies not
only by pardoning, but also by regenerating, he inquires whether God
leaves those whom he justifies in their natural state, without any
reformation of their manners. The answer is very easy; as Christ cannot be
divided, so these two blessings, which we receive together in him, are
also inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favour, he
likewise gives them the Spirit of adoption, by whose power he renews them
in his own image. But if the brightness of the sun be inseparable from his
heat, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by his light, and
illuminated by his heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the present
subject than this similitude. The beams of the sun quicken and fertilize
the earth, his rays brighten and illuminate it. Here is a mutual and
indivisible connection. Yet reason itself prohibits us to transfer to one
what is peculiar to the other. In this confusion of two blessings which
Osiander obtrudes on us, there is a similar absurdity. For as God actually
renews to the practice of righteousness those whom he gratuitously accepts
as righteous, Osiander confounds that gift of regeneration with this
gracious acceptance, and contends that they are one and the same. But the
Scripture, though it connects them together, yet enumerates them
distinctly, that the manifold grace of God may be the more evident to us.
For that passage of Paul is not superfluous, that “Christ is made unto us
righteousness and sanctification.”(1898) And whenever he argues, from the
salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God, and from the
grace of Christ, that we are called to holiness and purity, he plainly
indicates that it is one thing to be justified, and another thing to be
made new creatures. When Osiander appeals to the Scripture, he corrupts as
many passages as he cites. The assertion of Paul, that “to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is counted for righteousness,”(1899) is explained by Osiander to denote
making a man righteous. With the same temerity he corrupts the whole of
that fourth chapter to the Romans, and hesitates not to impose the same
false gloss on the passage just cited, “Who shall lay any thing to the
charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth;” where it is evident
that the apostle is treating simply of accusation and absolution, and that
his meaning wholly rests on the antithesis. His folly, therefore, betrays
itself both in his arguments and in his citations of Scripture proofs.
With no more propriety does he treat of the word righteousness, when he
says, “that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” because that
after having embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of God, and God
himself,) he was eminent for the greatest virtues. Whence it appears, that
of two good parts, he erroneously makes one corrupt whole; for the
righteousness there mentioned does not belong to the whole course of
Abraham’s life; but rather the Spirit testifies that, notwithstanding the
singular eminence of Abraham’s virtues, and his laudable and persevering
advancement in them, yet he did not please God any otherwise than in
receiving by faith the grace offered in the promise. Whence it follows,
that in justification there is no regard paid to works, as Paul
conclusively argues in that passage.

VII. His objection, that the power of justifying belongs not to faith of
itself, but only as it receives Christ, I readily admit. For if faith were
to justify of itself, or by an intrinsic efficacy, as it is expressed,
being always weak and imperfect, it never could effect this but in part;
and thus it would be a defective justification, which would only confer on
us a partial salvation. Now, we entertain no such notion as the objection
supposes; on the contrary, we affirm that, strictly speaking, “it is God
that justifies;” and then we transfer this to Christ, because he is given
to us for righteousness. Faith we compare to a vessel; for unless we come
empty with the mouth of our soul open to implore the grace of Christ, we
cannot receive Christ. Whence it may be inferred, that we do not detract
from Christ the power of justifying, when we teach that faith receives him
before it receives his righteousness. Nevertheless, I cannot admit the
intricate comparisons of this sophist, when he says that faith is Christ;
as though an earthen vessel were a treasure, because gold is concealed in
it. For faith, although intrinsically it is of no dignity or value,
justifies us by an application of Christ, just as a vessel full of money
constitutes a man rich. Therefore I maintain that faith, which is only the
instrument by which righteousness is received, cannot without absurdity be
confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, and at once the author
and dispenser of so great a benefit. We have now removed the difficulty as
to the sense in which the word _faith_ ought to be understood, when it is
applied to justification.

VIII. Respecting the reception of Christ, he goes still greater lengths;
asserting that the internal word is received by the ministry of the
external word, by which he would divert us from the priesthood of Christ
and the person of the Mediator, to his eternal divinity. We do not divide
Christ, but we maintain that the same person, who, by reconciling us to
the Father in his own flesh, has given us righteousness, is the eternal
Word of God; and we confess that he could not otherwise have discharged
the office of Mediator, and procured righteousness for us, if he were not
the eternal God. But the opinion of Osiander is, that since Christ is both
God and man, he is made righteousness to us, in respect of his Divine, not
his human nature. Now, if this properly belong to the Divinity, it will
not be peculiar to Christ, but common also to the Father and the Spirit;
since the righteousness of one is the same as that of the others. Besides,
what has been naturally eternal, cannot with propriety be said to be “made
unto us.” But though we grant that God is made righteousness unto us, how
will it agree with the clause which is inserted, that “of God,” he “is
made unto us righteousness?” This is certainly peculiar to the character
of the Mediator, who, though he contains in himself the Divine nature, yet
is designated by this appropriate title, by which he is distinguished from
the Father and the Spirit. But he ridiculously triumphs in that single
expression of Jeremiah, where he promises that “the Lord,” _Jehovah_, will
be “our righteousness.”(1900) He can deduce nothing from this, but that
Christ, who is our righteousness, is God manifested in the flesh. We have
elsewhere recited from Paul’s sermon, that “God hath purchased the Church
with his own blood.”(1901) If any should infer from this, that the blood
by which our sins were expiated, was Divine, and part of the Divine
nature, who could bear so monstrous an error? But Osiander thinks he has
gained every thing by this very puerile cavil; he swells, exults, and
fills many pages with his swelling words, though the passage is simply and
readily explained, by saying that Jehovah, when he should become the seed
of David, would be the righteousness of the pious; and in the same sense
Isaiah informs us, “by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify
many.”(1902) Let us remark, that the speaker here is the Father; that he
attributes to his Son the office of justifying; that he adds as a reason,
that he is righteous; and that he places the mode or means of effecting
this, in the doctrine by which Christ is made known. For it is more
suitable to understand the word רעח in a passive sense. Hence I conclude,
first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a
servant; secondly, that he justifies us by his own obedience to the
Father; and, therefore, that he does this for us, not according to his
Divine nature, but by reason of the dispensation committed to him. For
though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and we are righteous
only by a participation of him, yet, because we have been alienated from
his righteousness through the unhappy breach occasioned by the fall, we
are under the necessity of descending to this inferior remedy, to be
justified by Christ, by the efficacy of his death and resurrection.

IX. If Osiander object, that the excellence of this work surpasses the
nature of man, and therefore can be ascribed only to the Divine
nature,—the former part of the objection I admit, but in the latter I
maintain that he is grossly mistaken. For although Christ could neither
purify our souls with his blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice,
nor absolve us from guilt, nor, in short, perform the functions of a
priest, if he were not truly God, because human power would have been
unequal to so great a burden, yet it is certain that he performed all
these things in his human nature. For if it be inquired, How are we
justified? Paul replies, “By the obedience” of Christ.(1903) But has he
obeyed in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? Hence we
infer, that righteousness is presented to us in his flesh. In the other
passage also, which I much wonder that Osiander is not ashamed to quote so
frequently, Paul places the source of righteousness wholly in the humanity
of Christ. “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1904) Osiander lays great
stress on “the righteousness of God,” and triumphs as though he had
evinced it to be his notion of essential righteousness; whereas the words
convey a very different idea,—that we are righteous through the expiation
effected by Christ. That “the righteousness of God” means that which God
approves, ought to have been known to the youngest novices; just as in
John “the praise of God” is opposed to “the praise of men.”(1905) I know
that “the righteousness of God” sometimes denotes that of which he is the
author, and which he bestows upon us; but, without any observation of
mine, the judicious reader will perceive that the meaning of this passage
is only, that we stand before the tribunal of God supported by the atoning
death of Christ. Nor is the term of such great importance, provided that
Osiander coincides with us in this, that we are justified in Christ,
inasmuch as he was made an expiatory sacrifice for us; which is altogether
incompatible with his Divine nature. For this reason, when Christ designs
to seal the righteousness and salvation which he has presented to us, he
exhibits a certain pledge of it in his flesh. He calls himself, indeed,
“living bread;” but adds, by way of explanation, “my flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed.” This method of instruction is discovered in
the sacraments; which, although they direct our faith to the whole of the
person of Christ, not to a part of him only, yet at the same time teach
that the matter of justification and salvation resides in his human
nature; not that he either justifies or vivifies, of himself as a mere
man, but because it has pleased God to manifest in the Mediator that which
was incomprehensible and hidden in himself. Wherefore I am accustomed to
say, that Christ is, as it were, a fountain opened to us, whence we may
draw what were otherwise concealed and useless in that secret and deep
fountain which flows to us in the person of the Mediator. In this manner,
and in this sense, provided he will submit to the clear and forcible
arguments which I have adduced, I do not deny that Christ justifies us, as
he is God and man, and that this work is common also to the Father and the
Spirit; and, finally, that the righteousness of which Christ makes us
partakers, is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God.

X. Moreover, that his cavils may not deceive the inexperienced, I confess
that we are destitute of this incomparable blessing, till Christ becomes
ours. I attribute, therefore, the highest importance to the connection
between the head and members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts;
in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that being made
ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.
We do not, then, contemplate him at a distance out of ourselves, that his
righteousness may be imputed to us; but because we have put him on, and
are ingrafted into his body, and because he has deigned to unite us to
himself, therefore we glory in a participation of his righteousness. Thus
we refute the cavil of Osiander, that faith is considered by us as
righteousness; as though we despoiled Christ of his right, when we affirm,
that by faith we come to him empty, that he alone may fill us with his
grace. But Osiander, despising this spiritual connection, insists on a
gross mixture of Christ with believers; and therefore invidiously gives
the appellation of Zuinglians to all who do not subscribe to his fanatical
error concerning essential righteousness; because they are not of opinion
that Christ is substantially eaten in the sacred supper. As for myself,
indeed, I consider it the highest honour to be thus reproached by a man so
proud and so absorbed in his own delusions; although he attacks not me
alone, but other writers well known in the world, whom he ought to have
treated with modest respect. But this does not at all affect me, who am
supporting no private interest; wherefore I the more unreservedly advocate
this cause, conscious that I am free from every sinister motive. His great
importunity in insisting on essential righteousness, and an essential
inhabitation of Christ in us, goes to this length—first, that God
transfuses himself into us by a gross mixture of himself with us, as he
pretends that there is a carnal eating in the sacred supper; secondly,
that God inspires his righteousness into us, by which we are really
righteous with him, since, according to this man, such righteousness is as
really God himself, as the goodness, or holiness, or perfection of God. I
shall not take much trouble to refute the testimonies adduced by him,
which he violently perverts from the celestial to the present state. By
Christ, says Peter, “are given unto us exceeding great and precious
promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine nature.”(1906)
As though we were now such as the gospel promises we shall be at the
second advent of Christ; nay, John apprizes us, that _then_ “we shall be
like God; for we shall see him as he is.”(1907) I have thought proper to
give the reader only a small specimen, and endeavoured to pass over these
impertinences, not that it is difficult to refute them, but because I am
unwilling to be tedious in labouring to no purpose.

XI. There is yet more latent poison in the second particular, in which he
maintains, that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already
sufficiently demonstrated, that although this dogma were not so
pestiferous, yet because it is weak and unsatisfactory, and evaporates
through its own inanity, it ought justly to be rejected by all judicious
and pious readers. But this is an impiety not to be tolerated—under the
pretext of a twofold righteousness to weaken the assurance of salvation,
and to elevate us above the clouds, that we may not embrace by faith the
grace of expiation, and call upon God with tranquillity of mind. Osiander
ridicules those who say that justification is a forensic term, because it
is necessary for us to be actually righteous: nor is there any thing that
he more dislikes than the doctrine that we are justified by gratuitous
imputation. Now, if God do not justify by absolving and pardoning us, what
is the meaning of this declaration of Paul? “God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1908) First I find, that
they are accounted righteous who are reconciled to God: the manner is
specified, that God justifies by pardoning; just as, in another passage,
justification is opposed to accusation; which antithesis clearly
demonstrates, that the form of expression is borrowed from the practice of
courts. Nor is there any one, but tolerably versed in the Hebrew language,
provided at the same time that he be in his sound senses, who can be
ignorant that this is the original of the phrase, and that this is its
import and meaning. Now, let Osiander answer me whether, where Paul says
that “David describeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven,”(1909) whether, I say, this be a
complete definition or a partial one. Certainly Paul does not adduce the
testimony of the Psalmist, as teaching that pardon of sins is a part of
righteousness, or concurs to the justification of a man; but he includes
the whole of righteousness in a free remission, pronouncing, “Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is
the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” He thence estimates and
judges of the felicity of such a man, because in this way he becomes
righteous, not actually, but by imputation. Osiander objects, that it
would be dishonourable to God, and contrary to his nature, if he justified
those who still remain actually impious. But it should be remembered that,
as I have already observed, the grace of justification is inseparable from
regeneration, although they are distinct things. But since it is
sufficiently known from experience, that some relics of sin always remain
in the righteous, the manner of their justification must of necessity be
very different from that of their renovation to newness of life. For the
latter God commences in his elect, and as long as they live carries it on
gradually, and sometimes slowly, so that they are always obnoxious at his
tribunal to the sentence of death. He justifies them, however, not in a
partial manner, but so completely, that they may boldly appear in heaven,
as being invested with the purity of Christ. For no portion of
righteousness could satisfy our consciences, till we have ascertained that
God is pleased with us, as being unexceptionably righteous before him.
Whence it follows, that the doctrine of justification is perverted and
totally overturned, when doubts are injected into the mind, when the
confidence of salvation is shaken, when bold and fearless worship is
interrupted, and when quiet and tranquillity with spiritual joy are not
established. Whence Paul argues from the incompatibility of things
contrary to each other, that the inheritance is not of the law, because
then faith would be rendered vain;(1910) which, if it be fixed upon works,
must inevitably fall; since not even the most holy of all saints will find
them afford any ground of confidence. This difference between
justification and regeneration (which Osiander confounds together, and
denominates a twofold righteousness) is beautifully expressed by Paul;
for, speaking of his real righteousness, or of the integrity which he
possessed, to which Osiander gives the appellation of essential
righteousness, he sorrowfully exclaims, “O wretched man that I am! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death?”(1911) But resorting to the
righteousness which is founded in the Divine mercy alone, he nobly
triumphs over life, and death, and reproaches, and famine, and the sword,
and all adverse things and persons. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge
of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. For I am persuaded, that
nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus our Lord.”(1912) He plainly declares himself to be possessed
of that righteousness, which alone is fully sufficient for salvation in
the sight of God; so that the miserable servitude, in a consciousness of
which he was just before bewailing his condition, neither diminishes, nor
in the smallest degree interrupts, the confidence with which he triumphs.
This diversity is sufficiently known, and is even familiar to all the
saints, who groan under the burden of their iniquities, and yet with
victorious confidence rise superior to every fear. But the objection of
Osiander, that it is incongruous to the nature of God, recoils upon
himself; for, although he invests the saints with a twofold righteousness,
as with a garment covered with skins, he is, notwithstanding, constrained
to acknowledge that no man can please God without the remission of his
sins. If this be true, he should at least grant that they who are not
actually righteous, are accounted righteous in proportion, as it is
expressed, to the degree of imputation. But how far shall a sinner extend
this gracious acceptance, which is substituted in the place of
righteousness? Shall he estimate it by the weight? Truly he will be in
great uncertainty to which side to incline the balance; because he will
not be able to assume to himself as much righteousness as may be necessary
to his confidence. It is well that he, who would wish to prescribe laws to
God, is not the arbiter of this cause. But this address of David to God
will remain: “That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be
clear when thou judgest.”(1913) And what extreme arrogance it is to
condemn the supreme Judge when he freely absolves, and not to be satisfied
with this answer, “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy!”(1914) And
yet the intercession of Moses, which God checked with this reply, was not
that he would spare none, but that, though they were guilty, he would
remove their guilt and absolve them all at once. We affirm, therefore,
that those who were undone are justified before God by the obliteration of
their sins; because, sin being the object of his hatred, he can love none
but those whom he justifies. But this is a wonderful method of
justification, that sinners, being invested with the righteousness of
Christ, dread not the judgment which they have deserved; and that, while
they justly condemn themselves, they are accounted righteous out of
themselves.

XII. But the readers must be cautioned to pay a strict attention to the
mystery which Osiander boasts that he will not conceal from them. For,
after having contended with great prolixity, that we do not obtain favour
with God solely through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
because it would be impossible for him to esteem those as righteous who
are not so, (I use his own words,) he at length concludes, that Christ is
given to us for righteousness, not in respect of his human, but of his
Divine nature; and that, though this righteousness can only be found in
the person of the Mediator, yet it is the righteousness, not of man, but
of God. He does not combine two righteousnesses, but evidently deprives
the humanity of Christ of all concern in the matter of justification. It
is worth while, however, to hear what arguments he adduces. It is said in
the passage referred to, that “Christ is made unto us wisdom,”(1915) which
is applicable only to the eternal Word. Neither, therefore, is Christ,
considered as man our righteousness. I reply, that the only begotten Son
of God was indeed his eternal wisdom; but this title is here ascribed to
him by Paul in a different sense, because “in him are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”(1916) What, therefore, he had with the
Father, he has manifested to us; and so what Paul says, refers not to the
essence of the Son of God, but to our benefit, and is rightly applied to
the humanity of Christ; because, although he was a light shining in
darkness before his assumption of the flesh, yet he was a hidden light
till he appeared in the nature of man “as the Sun of righteousness;”(1917)
wherefore he calls himself “the light of the world.”(1918) Osiander
betrays his folly likewise in objecting, that justification exceeds the
power of angels and men; since it depends not upon the dignity of any
creature, but upon the appointment of God. If angels were desirous to
offer a satisfaction to God, it would be unavailing; because they have not
been appointed to it. This was peculiar to the man Christ, who was “made
under the law, to redeem us from the curse of the law.”(1919) He likewise
very unjustly accuses those who deny that Christ is our righteousness
according to his Divine nature, of retaining only one part of Christ, and
(what is worse) making two Gods; because, though they acknowledge that God
dwells in us, yet they flatly deny that we are righteous through the
righteousness of God. For if we call Christ the author of life in
consequence of his having suffered death, “that he might destroy him that
had the power of death,”(1920) it is not to be inferred that we deny this
honour to his complete person, as God manifested in the flesh: we only
state with precision the means by which the righteousness of God is
conveyed to us, so that we may enjoy it. In this, Osiander has fallen into
a very pernicious error. We do not deny, that what is openly exhibited to
us in Christ flows from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we
refuse to admit, that the righteousness conferred on us by Christ is the
righteousness of God as proceeding from him; but we constantly maintain
that we have righteousness and life in the death and resurrection of
Christ. I pass over that shameful accumulation of passages, with which,
without any discrimination, and even without common sense, he has burdened
the reader, in order to evince, that wherever mention is made of
righteousness, it ought to be understood of this essential righteousness;
as where David implores the righteousness of God to assist him; which as
he does above a hundred times, Osiander hesitates not to pervert such a
great number of passages. Nor is there any thing more solid in his other
objection, that the term “righteousness” is properly and rightly applied
to that by which we are excited to rectitude of conduct, and that God
alone “worketh in us both to will and to do.”(1921) Now, we do not deny,
that God renews us by his Spirit to holiness and righteousness of life;
but it should first be inquired, whether he does this immediately by
himself, or through the medium of his Son, with whom he has deposited all
the plenitude of his Spirit, that with his abundance he might relieve the
necessities of his members. Besides, though righteousness flows to us from
the secret fountain of the Divinity, yet it does not follow that Christ,
who in the flesh sanctified himself for our sakes,(1922) is our
righteousness with respect to his Divine nature. Equally frivolous is his
assertion, that Christ himself was righteous with the righteousness of
God; because, if he had not been influenced by the will of the Father, not
even he could have performed the part assigned him. For though it has been
elsewhere observed, that all the merit of Christ himself flows from the
mere favour of God, yet this affords no countenance to the fanciful notion
with which Osiander fascinates his own eyes and those of the injudicious.
For who would admit the inference, that because God is the original source
of our righteousness, we are therefore essentially righteous, and have the
essence of the Divine righteousness residing in us? In redeeming the
Church (Isaiah says) God “put on righteousness as a breastplate;”(1923)
but was it to spoil Christ of the armour which he had given him, and to
prevent his being a perfect Redeemer? The prophet only meant that God
borrowed nothing extrinsic to himself, and had no assistance in the work
of our redemption. Paul has briefly intimated the same in other words,
saying that he has given us salvation in order “to declare his
righteousness.”(1924) Nor does this at all contradict what he states in
another place, “that by the obedience of one we are made righteous.”(1925)
To conclude: whoever fabricates a twofold righteousness, that wretched
souls may not rely wholly and exclusively on the Divine mercy, makes
Christ an object of contempt, and crowns him with platted thorns.

XIII. But as many persons imagine righteousness to be composed of faith
and works, let us also prove, before we proceed, that the righteousness of
faith is so exceedingly different from that of works, that if one be
established, the other must necessarily be subverted. The apostle says, “I
count all things but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not
having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith.”(1926) Here we see a comparison of two opposites, and an
implication that his own righteousness must be forsaken by him who wishes
to obtain the righteousness of Christ. Wherefore, in another place, he
states this to have been the cause of the ruin of the Jews, that, “going
about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God.”(1927) If, by establishing our
own righteousness, we reject the righteousness of God, then, in order to
obtain the latter, the former must doubtless be entirely renounced. He
conveys the same sentiment when he asserts, that “boasting is excluded. By
what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.”(1928) Whence it
follows, that as long as there remains the least particle of righteousness
in our works, we retain some cause for boasting. But if faith excludes all
boasting, the righteousness of works can by no means be associated with
the righteousness of faith. To this purpose he speaks so clearly in the
fourth chapter to the Romans, as to leave no room for cavil or evasion.
“If Abraham (says he) were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.”
He adds, “but” he hath “not” whereof to glory “before God.”(1929) It
follows, therefore, that he was not justified by works. Then he advances
another argument from two opposites. “To him that worketh is the reward
not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”(1930) But righteousness is attributed
to faith through grace. Therefore it is not from the merit of works.
Adieu, therefore, to the fanciful notion of those who imagine a
righteousness compounded of faith and works.

XIV. The sophists, who amuse and delight themselves with perversion of the
Scripture and vain cavils, think they have found a most excellent
subterfuge, when they explain _works_, in these passages, to mean those
which men yet unregenerate perform without the grace of Christ, merely
through the unassisted efforts of their own free‐will; and deny that they
relate to spiritual works. Thus, according to them, a man is justified
both by faith and by works, only the works are not properly his own, but
the gifts of Christ and the fruits of regeneration. For they say that Paul
spoke in this manner, only that the Jews, who relied on their own
strength, might be convinced of their folly in arrogating righteousness to
themselves, whereas it is conferred on us solely by the Spirit of Christ,
not by any exertion properly our own. But they do not observe, that in the
contrast of legal and evangelical righteousness, which Paul introduces in
another place, all works are excluded, by what title soever they may be
distinguished. For he teaches that this is the righteousness of the law,
that he who has fulfilled the command of the law shall obtain
salvation;(1931) but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing
that Christ has died and is risen again.(1932) Besides, we shall see, as
we proceed, in its proper place, that sanctification and righteousness are
separate blessings of Christ. Whence it follows, that even spiritual works
are not taken into the account, when the power of justifying is attributed
to faith. And the assertion of Paul, in the place just cited, that Abraham
has not whereof to glory before God, since he was not justified by works,
ought not to be restricted to any literal appearance or external display
of virtue, or to any efforts of free‐will; but though the life of the
patriarch was spiritual, and almost angelic, yet his works did not possess
sufficient merit to justify him before God.

XV. The errors of the schoolmen, who mingle their preparations, are rather
more gross; but they instil into the simple and incautious a doctrine
equally corrupt, while under the pretext of the Spirit and of grace, they
conceal the mercy of God, which alone can calm the terrors of the
conscience. We confess, indeed, with Paul, that “the doers of the law are
justified before God;”(1933) but since we are all far from being observers
of the law, we conclude, that those works which should be principally
available to justification, afford us no assistance, because we are
destitute of them. With respect to the common Papists, or schoolmen, they
are in this matter doubly deceived; both in denominating faith a certainty
of conscience in expecting from God a reward of merit, and in explaining
the grace of God to be, not an imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but
the Spirit assisting to the pursuit of holiness. They read in the apostle,
“He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of them that diligently seek him.”(1934) But they do not consider the
manner of seeking him. And that they mistake the sense of the word
“grace,” is evident from their writings. For Lombard represents
justification by Christ as given us in two ways. He says, “The death of
Christ justifies us, first, because it excites charity in our hearts, by
which we are made actually righteous; secondly, because it destroys sin,
by which the devil held us in captivity, so that now it cannot condemn
us.” We see how he considers the grace of God in justification to consist
in our being directed to good works by the grace of the Holy Spirit. He
wished, indeed, to follow the opinion of Augustine; but he follows him at
a great distance, and even deviates considerably from a close imitation of
him; for whatever he finds clearly stated by him, he obscures, and
whatever he finds pure in him, he corrupts. The schools have always been
running into worse and worse errors, till at length they have precipitated
themselves into a kind of Pelagianism. Nor, indeed, is the opinion of
Augustine, or at least his manner of expression, to be altogether
admitted. For though he excellently despoils man of all the praise of
righteousness, and ascribes the whole to the grace of God, yet he refers
grace to sanctification, in which we are regenerated by the Spirit to
newness of life.

XVI. The Scripture, when speaking of the righteousness of faith, leads us
to something very different. It teaches us, that being diverted from the
contemplation of our own works, we should regard nothing but the mercy of
God and the perfection of Christ. For it states this to be the order of
justification; that from the beginning God deigns to embrace sinful man
with his pure and gratuitous goodness, contemplating nothing in him to
excite mercy, but his misery; (for God beholds him utterly destitute of
all good works;) deriving from himself the motive for blessing him, that
he may affect the sinner himself with a sense of his supreme goodness,
who, losing all confidence in his own works, rests the whole of his
salvation on the Divine mercy. This is the sentiment of faith, by which
the sinner comes to the enjoyment of his salvation, when he knows from the
doctrine of the gospel that he is reconciled to God; that having obtained
remission of sins, he is justified by the intervention of the
righteousness of Christ; and though regenerated by the Spirit of God, he
thinks on everlasting righteousness reserved for him, not in the good
works to which he devotes himself, but solely in the righteousness of
Christ. When all these things shall have been particularly examined, they
will afford a perspicuous explication of our opinion. They will, however,
be better digested in a different order from that in which they have been
proposed. But it is of little importance, provided they are so connected
with each other, that we may have the whole subject rightly stated and
well confirmed.

XVII. Here it is proper to recall to remembrance the relation we have
before stated between faith and the gospel; since the reason why faith is
said to justify, is, that it receives and embraces the righteousness
offered in the gospel. But its being offered by the gospel absolutely
excludes all consideration of works. This Paul very clearly demonstrates
on various occasions; and particularly in two passages. In his Epistle to
the Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says, “Moses describeth
the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those
things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith
speaketh on this wise: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved.”(1935) Do you perceive how he thus
discriminates between the law and the gospel, that the former attributes
righteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely, without the
assistance of works? It is a remarkable passage, and may serve to
extricate us from a multitude of difficulties, if we understand that the
righteousness which is given us by the gospel is free from all legal
conditions. This is the reason why he more than once strongly opposes the
_promise_ to the _law_. “If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more
of promise;”(1936) and more in the same chapter to the same purpose. It is
certain that the law also has its promises. Wherefore, unless we will
confess the comparison to be improper, there must be something distinct
and different in the promises of the gospel. Now, what can that be, but
that they are gratuitous and solely dependent on the Divine mercy, whilst
the promises of the law depend on the condition of works? Nor let any one
object, that it is only the righteousness which men would obtrude on God
from their own natural powers and free‐will that is rejected; since Paul
teaches it as a universal truth, that the precepts of the law are
unprofitable, because, not only among the vulgar, but even among the very
best of men, there is not one who can fulfil them.(1937) Love is certainly
the principal branch of the law: when the Spirit of God forms us to it,
why does it not constitute any part of our righteousness, but because even
in the saints it is imperfect, and therefore of itself deserves no reward?

XVIII. The other passage is as follows: “That no man is justified by the
law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in
them.”(1938) How could this argument be supported, unless it were certain
that works do not come into the account of faith, but are to be entirely
separated from it? The law, he says, differs from faith. Why? Because
works are required to the righteousness of the law. It follows, therefore,
that works are not required to the righteousness of faith. From this
statement it appears, that they who are justified by faith, are justified
without the merit of works, and beyond the merit of works; for faith
receives that righteousness which the gospel bestows; and the gospel
differs from the law in this respect, that it does not confine
righteousness to works, but rests it entirely on the mercy of God. He
argues in a similar manner to the Romans, that “Abraham had not whereof to
glory; for he believed God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness;”(1939) and by way of confirmation he subjoins, that then
there is room for the righteousness of faith when there are no works which
merit any reward. He tells us, that where there are works, they receive a
reward “of debt,” but that what is given to faith is “of grace;” for this
is the clear import of the language which he there uses. When he adds, a
little after, “Therefore it is of faith” that we obtain the inheritance,
in order “that it might be by grace,”(1940) he infers that the inheritance
is gratuitous, because it is received by faith: and why is this, but
because faith, without any assistance of works, depends wholly on the
Divine mercy? And in the same sense undoubtedly he elsewhere teaches us,
that “the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
witnessed by the law and the prophets;”(1941) because, by excluding the
law, he denies that righteousness is assisted by works, or that we obtain
it by working, but asserts that we come empty in order to receive it.

XIX. The reader will now discover, with what justice the sophists of the
present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say _that a man is justified by
faith only_. That a man is justified _by faith_, they do not deny, because
the Scripture so often declares it; but since it is nowhere expressly said
to be by faith only, they cannot bear this addition to be made. But what
reply will they give to these words of Paul, where he contends that
“righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous?”(1942) How can any
thing gratuitous consist with works? And by what cavils will they elude
what he asserts in another place, that in the gospel “is the righteousness
of God revealed?”(1943) If righteousness is revealed in the gospel, it is
certainly not a mutilated and partial, but a complete and perfect one. The
law, therefore, has no concern in it. And respecting this exclusive
particle, _only_, they rest on an evasion which is not only false, but
glaringly ridiculous. For does not he most completely attribute every
thing to faith alone, who denies every thing to works? What is the meaning
of these expressions of Paul? “Righteousness is manifested without the
law,” “justified freely by his grace,” “justified without the deeds of the
law.”(1944) Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, which, though it is
not of their own invention, but borrowed from Origen and some of the
ancients, is nevertheless very absurd. They pretend that the works
excluded are the ceremonial works of the law, not the moral works. They
have made such a proficiency by their perpetual disputations, that they
have forgotten the first elements of logic. Do they suppose the apostle to
have been insane, when he adduced these passages in proof of his doctrine?
“The man that doeth them shall live in them;” and “Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law
to do them.”(1945) If they be in their sober senses, they will not assert
that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse
denounced merely on the transgressors of them. If these places are to be
understood of the moral law, it is beyond a doubt, that moral works
likewise are excluded from the power to justify. To the same purpose are
these arguments which he uses: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin;”
consequently not righteousness. “Because the law worketh wrath,”(1946)
therefore not righteousness. Since the law cannot assure our consciences,
neither can it confer righteousness. Since faith is counted for
righteousness, consequently righteousness is not a reward of works, but is
gratuitously bestowed. Since we are justified by faith, boasting is
precluded. “If there had been a law given which could have given life,
verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath
concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might
be given to them that believe.”(1947) Let them idly pretend, if they dare,
that these are applicable to ceremonies, not to morals; but even children
would explode such consummate impudence. We may therefore be assured, that
when the power of justifying is denied to the law, the whole law is
included.

XX. If any one should wonder why the apostle does not content himself with
simply mentioning _works_, but says _works of the law_, the reason is
obvious. For though works are so greatly esteemed, they derive their value
from the Divine approbation rather than from any intrinsic excellence. For
who can dare to boast to God of any righteousness of works, but what he
has approved? Who can dare to claim any reward as due to them, but what he
has promised? It is owing, therefore, to the Divine favour, that they are
accounted worthy both of the title and of the reward of righteousness; and
so they are valuable, only when they are intended as acts of obedience to
God. Wherefore the apostle, in another place, in order to prove that
Abraham could not be justified by works, alleges, that “the law was four
hundred and thirty years after the covenant was confirmed.”(1948) Ignorant
persons would ridicule such an argument, because there might have been
righteous works before the promulgation of the law; but knowing that works
have no such intrinsic worth, independently of the testimony and esteem of
God, he has taken it for granted that, antecedently to the law, they had
no power to justify. We know why he expressly mentions “the works of the
law,” when he means to deny justification by works; it is because they
alone can furnish any occasion of controversy. However, he likewise
excludes all works, without any limitation, as when he says, “David
describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works.”(1949) They cannot, therefore, by any
subtleties prevent us from retaining this general exclusive particle. It
is in vain, also, that they catch at another frivolous subtlety, alleging
that we are justified only by that “faith which worketh by love;”(1950)
with a view to represent righteousness as depending on love. We
acknowledge, indeed, with Paul, that no other faith justifies, except that
“which worketh by love;” but it does not derive its power to justify from
the efficacy of that love. It justifies in no other way than as it
introduces us into a participation of the righteousness of Christ.
Otherwise there would be no force in the argument so strenuously urged by
the apostle. “To him that worketh,” says he, “is the reward not reckoned
of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness.”(1951) Was it possible for him to speak more plainly than
by thus asserting, that there is no righteousness of faith, except where
there are no works entitled to any reward; and that faith is imputed for
righteousness, only when righteousness is conferred through unmerited
grace?

XXI. Now, let us examine the truth of what has been asserted in the
definition, that the righteousness of faith is a reconciliation with God,
which consists solely in remission of sins.(1952) We must always return to
this axiom—That the Divine wrath remains on all men, as long as they
continue to be sinners. This Isaiah has beautifully expressed in the
following words: “The Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save;
neither is his ear heavy, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have
separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from
you, that he will not hear.”(1953) We are informed, that sin makes a
division between man and God, and turns the Divine countenance away from
the sinner. Nor can it be otherwise; because it is incompatible with his
righteousness to have any communion with sin. Hence the apostle teaches,
that man is an enemy to God, till he be reconciled to him through
Christ.(1954) Whom, therefore, the Lord receives into fellowship, him he
is said to justify; because he cannot receive any one into favour or into
fellowship with himself, without making him from a sinner to be a
righteous person. This, we add, is accomplished by the remission of sins.
For if they, whom the Lord has reconciled to himself, be judged according
to their works, they will still be found actually sinners; who,
notwithstanding, must be absolved and free from sin. It appears, then,
that those whom God receives, are made righteous no otherwise than as they
are purified by being cleansed from all their defilements by the remission
of their sins; so that such a righteousness may, in one word, be
denominated a remission of sins.

XXII. Both these points are fully established by the language of Paul,
which I have already recited. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed
unto us the word of reconciliation.”(1955) Then he adds the substance of
his ministry: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1956) The terms
“righteousness” and “reconciliation” are here used by him
indiscriminately, to teach us that they are mutually comprehended in each
other. And he states the manner of obtaining this righteousness to consist
in our transgressions not being imputed to us. Wherefore we can no longer
doubt how God justifies, when we hear that he reconciles us to himself by
not imputing our sins to us. Thus, in the Epistle to the Romans, the
apostle proves, that “God imputeth righteousness without works,” from the
testimony of David, who declares, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
will not impute sin.”(1957) By “blessedness,” in this passage, he
undoubtedly means righteousness; for since he asserts it to consist in
remission of sins, there is no reason for our adopting any other
definition of it. Wherefore Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist,
places “the knowledge of salvation” in “the remission of sins.”(1958) And
Paul, observing the same rule in the sermon which he preached to the
people of Antioch on the subject of salvation, is stated by Luke to have
concluded in the following manner: “Through this man is preached unto you
the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from
all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of
Moses.”(1959) The apostle thus connects “forgiveness of sins” with
“justification,” to show that they are identically the same; whence he
justly argues, that this righteousness which we obtain through the favour
of God is gratuitously bestowed upon us. Nor should it be thought a
strange expression, that believers are justified before God, not by their
works, but by his gracious acceptance of them; since it occurs so
frequently in the Scripture, and sometimes also in the fathers. Augustine
says, “The righteousness of the saints, in this world, consists rather in
the remission of their sins than in the perfection of their virtues.” With
which corresponds the remarkable observation of Bernard: “Not to sin at
all, is the righteousness of God; but the righteousness of man is the
Divine grace and mercy.” He had before asserted, “that Christ is
righteousness to us in absolution, and therefore that they alone are
righteous who have obtained pardon through his mercy.”

XXIII. Hence, also, it is evident, that we obtain justification before
God, solely by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ. Which is
equivalent to saying, that a man is righteous, not in himself, but because
the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation; and this
is a point which deserves an attentive consideration. For it supersedes
that idle notion, that a man is justified by faith, because faith receives
the Spirit of God by whom he is made righteous; which is too repugnant to
the foregoing doctrine, ever to be reconcilable to it. For he must
certainly be destitute of all righteousness of his own, who is taught to
seek a righteousness out of himself. This is most clearly asserted by the
apostle, when he says, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1960) We see
that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; and that all
our title to it rests solely on our being partakers of Christ; for in
possessing him, we possess all his riches with him. Nor does any objection
arise from what he states in another place, that “God, sending his own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;
that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us;”(1961) where
he intends no other fulfilment than what we obtain by imputation. For the
Lord Christ so communicates his righteousness to us, that, with reference
to the Divine judgment, he transfuses its virtue into us in a most
wonderful manner. That the apostle intended no other, abundantly appears
from another declaration, which he had made just before: “As by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous.”(1962) What is placing our righteousness in the
obedience of Christ, but asserting, that we are accounted righteous only
because his obedience is accepted for us as if it were our own? Wherefore
Ambrose appears to me to have very beautifully exemplified this
righteousness in the benediction of Jacob; that as he, who had on his own
account no claim to the privileges of primogeniture, being concealed in
his brother’s habit, and invested with his garment, which diffused a most
excellent odour, insinuated himself into the favour of his father, that he
might receive the benediction to his own advantage, under the character of
another; so we shelter ourselves under the precious purity of Christ our
elder brother, that we may obtain the testimony of righteousness in the
sight of God. The words of Ambrose are, “That Isaac smelled the odour of
the garments, perhaps indicates, that we are justified not by works, but
by faith; since the infirmity of the flesh is an impediment to works, but
the brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of sin, conceals the
error of our actions.” And such is indeed the real fact; for that we may
appear before the face of God to salvation, it is necessary for us to be
perfumed with his fragrance, and to have all our deformities concealed and
absorbed in his perfection.

Chapter XII. A Consideration Of The Divine Tribunal, Necessary To A
Serious Conviction Of Gratuitous Justification.

Though it appears, from the plainest testimonies, that all these things
are strictly true, yet we shall not clearly discover how necessary they
are, till we shall have taken a view of what ought to be the foundation of
all this argument. In the first place, therefore, we should reflect that
we are not treating of the righteousness of a human court, but of that of
the heavenly tribunal; in order that we may not apply any diminutive
standard of our own, to estimate the integrity of conduct required to
satisfy the Divine justice. But it is wonderful, with what temerity and
presumption this is commonly decided; and it is even observable, that no
men give us more confident or pompous declamations concerning the
righteousness of works, than those who are notoriously guilty of open sins
or addicted to secret vices. This arises from their never thinking of the
righteousness of God, the smallest sense of which would prevent them from
treating it with such contempt. And certainly it is exceedingly
undervalued, if it be not acknowledged to be so perfect that nothing can
be acceptable to it but what is absolutely complete and immaculate, such
as it never was, nor ever will be, possible to find in fallen man. It is
easy for any one in the cloisters of the schools, to indulge himself in
idle speculations on the merit of works to justify men; but when he comes
into the presence of God, he must bid farewell to these amusements, for
there the business is transacted with seriousness, and no ludicrous
logomachy practised. To this point, then, must our attention be directed,
if we wish to make any useful inquiry concerning true righteousness; how
we can answer the celestial Judge, when he shall call us to an account.
Let us place that Judge before our eyes, not according to the spontaneous
imaginations of our minds, but according to the descriptions given of him
in the Scripture; which represents him as one whose refulgence eclipses
the stars, whose power melts the mountains, whose anger shakes the earth,
whose wisdom takes the subtle in their own craftiness, whose purity makes
all things appear polluted, whose righteousness even the angels are unable
to bear, who acquits not the guilty, whose vengeance, when it is once
kindled, penetrates even to the abyss of hell.(1963) Let him seat himself,
I say, on the tribunal, to examine the actions of men: who will present
himself fearless before his throne? “Who shall dwell with the devouring
fire?” saith the prophet. “Who shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He
that walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly,” &c.(1964) Now let him
come forward, whoever he is. But this answer causes not one to appear.
For, on the contrary, we hear this fearful speech, “If thou, Lord,
shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”(1965) In truth, all
must speedily perish, as it is written in another place, “Shall mortal man
be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold, he
put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly; how
much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the
dust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning
to evening.”(1966) Again: “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea,
the heavens are not clean in his sight; how much more abominable and
filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?”(1967) I confess that
in the Book of Job mention is made of a righteousness which is superior to
the observance of the law. And it will be of use to remember this
distinction; because, though any one could satisfy the law, he could not
even then stand the scrutiny of that righteousness which exceeds all
comprehension. Therefore, though Job is conscious of his own integrity,
yet he is mute with astonishment, when he sees that God could not be
pleased even with the sanctity of angels, if he were to enter into a
strict examination of their works. I shall, therefore, now pass over that
righteousness to which I have alluded, because it is incomprehensible, and
content myself with asserting, that we must be worse than stupid, if, on
an examination of our lives by the rule of the written law, we are not
tormented with awful dread in consequence of so many maledictions, which
God has designed to arouse us, and among the rest this general one:
“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do
them.”(1968) In short, this whole controversy will be uninteresting and
useless, unless every one present himself as a criminal before the
celestial Judge, and voluntarily prostrate and humble himself in deep
solicitude concerning his absolution.

II. To this point our eyes ought to have been raised, that we might learn
rather to tremble through fear, than to indulge in vain exultation. It is
easy, indeed, while the comparison is made only between men, for every man
to imagine himself to be possessed of something which others ought not to
contemn; but when we ascend to the contemplation of God, that confidence
is immediately lost. And the case of our soul with respect to God is
similar to that of our body with respect to the visible heavens; for the
eye, as long as it is employed in beholding adjacent objects, receives
proofs of its own perspicacity; but if it be directed towards the sun,
dazzled and confounded with his overpowering brightness, it feels no less
debility in beholding him, than strength in the view of inferior objects.
Let us not, then, deceive ourselves with a vain confidence, although we
consider ourselves equal or superior to other men. That is nothing to God,
to whose decision this cause must be submitted. But if our insolence
cannot be restrained by these admonitions, he will reply to us in the
language which he addressed to the Pharisees: “Ye are they which justify
yourselves before men; but that which is highly esteemed among men, is
abomination in the sight of God.”(1969) Go now, and among men proudly
glory in your righteousness, while the God of heaven abominates it. But
what is the language of the servants of God, who are truly taught by his
Spirit? One says, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
sight shall no man living be justified.”(1970) And another, though in a
sense somewhat different, “How should man be just with God? If he will
contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”(1971) Here we
are plainly informed respecting the righteousness of God, that it is such
as no human works can satisfy; and such as renders it impossible for us,
if accused of a thousand crimes, to exculpate ourselves from one of them.
The same idea of this righteousness had very properly been entertained by
Paul, that “chosen vessel”(1972) of God, when he professed, “I am
conscious to myself of nothing; yet am I not hereby justified.”(1973)

III. Nor is it only in the sacred Scriptures that such examples are found.
All pious writers discover similar sentiments. Thus Augustine says, “The
only hope of all the pious, who groan under this burden of corruptible
flesh, and amidst the infirmities of this life, is, that we have a
Mediator, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our
sins.” What is the meaning of this observation? If this is their only
hope, where is any confidence in works? For when he asserts this to be the
only one, he precludes every other. Bernard also says, “And in fact where
can be found safe and solid rest and security for the weak, but in the
wounds of the Saviour? There I dwell with the greater security, in
proportion to his power to save. The world rages, the body oppresses, the
devil lies in wait to destroy. I do not fall, because my foundation is on
a firm rock. I have committed heinous sin. My conscience is disturbed, but
shall not fall into despair, because I shall recall to remembrance the
wounds of the Lord.” From these considerations he afterwards concludes,
“My merit, therefore, is the compassion of the Lord: I am clearly not
destitute of merit, as long as he is not destitute of compassions. But if
the mercies of the Lord be a multitude of mercies, my merits are likewise
equally numerous. Shall I sing of my own righteousness? O Lord, I will
remember thy righteousness alone. For it is mine also, since he is made of
God righteousness unto me.” Again, in another place: “This is the whole
merit of man—to fix all his hope on him who saves the whole man.” Likewise
in another place, retaining peace to himself, and ascribing the glory to
God, he says, “To thee let the glory remain undiminished. It is happy for
me, if I have peace. The glory I entirely renounce; lest, if I usurp what
is not mine, I lose also that which is offered me.” In another place he is
still more explicit: “Why should the Church be solicitous about merits,
while it has a stronger and more secure reason for glorying in the designs
of God? You need not inquire on account of what merits we hope for
blessings, especially when you read in the prophet, ‘Thus saith the Lord
God; I do not this for your sakes, but for mine holy name’s sake.’(1974)
It suffices with respect to merit, to know that merits are not sufficient;
but as it suffices for merit not to presume on merits, so to be destitute
of merits is sufficient cause of condemnation.” We must excuse his custom
of freely using the word _merits_ for good works. But his ultimate design
was to terrify hypocrites, who indulge themselves in a licentious course
of sin against the grace of God; as he presently declares: “Happy is the
Church which wants neither merits without presumption, nor presumption
without merits. It has some ground of presumption, but not merits. It has
merits, but in order to deserve, not to presume. Is not the absence of
presumption itself a merit? Therefore the Church presumes the more
securely, because it does not presume, having ample cause for glorying in
the multitude of the Divine mercies.”

IV. This is the real truth. The troubled conscience finds this to be the
only asylum of safety, where it can enjoy any tranquillity, when it has to
do with the Divine justice. For if the stars, which appeared most
brilliant during the night, lose their splendour on the rising of the sun,
what can we suppose will be the case with the most excellent innocence of
man, when compared with the purity of God? For that will be an examination
inconceivably severe, which shall penetrate into all the most secret
thoughts of the heart, and, as Paul says, “bring to light the hidden
things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts;”(1975)
which shall constrain the reluctant conscience to confess all those things
which have now passed away even from our own remembrance. We shall be
urged by an accusing devil, who has been privy to all the crimes which he
has impelled us to perpetrate. There the external appearance of good
works, which now is the sole object of esteem, will be of no avail;
sincerity of heart is all that will be required. Wherefore hypocrisy, not
only that by which a man, conscious of his guilt before God, affects
ostentation before men, but that also by which every man imposes on
himself before God, for we are all prone to self‐complacency and
adulation; hypocrisy in all its forms will then be overwhelmed with
confusion, however it may now be intoxicated with presumption and pride.
Persons who never look forward to such a spectacle, may, indeed,
delightfully and complacently compose for themselves a temporary
righteousness, of which they will immediately be stripped at the Divine
judgment; just as immense riches, accumulated by us in a dream, vanish as
soon as we awake. But they who inquire seriously, and as in the presence
of God, respecting the true standard of righteousness, will certainly find
that all the actions of men, if estimated according to their intrinsic
worth, are utterly defiled and polluted; that what is commonly considered
as righteousness, is, in the Divine view, nothing but iniquity; that what
is accounted integrity, is mere pollution; and that what is reputed glory,
is real ignominy.

V. From this contemplation of the Divine perfection, let us not be
unwilling to descend to take a view of ourselves, without adulation or
blind self‐love. For it is not to be wondered at, if we are so extremely
blind in this respect, since not one of us is sufficiently cautious of
that pestilent self‐indulgence, which the Scripture declares to be
naturally inherent in us all. “Every way of man,” says Solomon, “is right
in his own eyes.”(1976) Again: “All the ways of a man are clean in his own
eyes.”(1977) But what follows from this? Is he absolved from guilt by this
delusion? Not at all; but, as is immediately added, “the Lord weigheth the
spirits;” that is, while men are congratulating themselves on account of
the external mask of righteousness which they wear, the Lord is at the
same time weighing in his own balance the latent impurity of their hearts.
Since we are so far from deriving any advantage, therefore, from such
blandishments, let us not voluntarily delude ourselves to our own
perdition. That we may examine ourselves properly, it is necessary for us
to summon our conscience to the tribunal of God. For we have the greatest
need of his light in order to detect the recesses of our depravity, which
otherwise are too deeply concealed. For then only shall we clearly
perceive the force of this language: “How can man be justified with
God—man, who is” corruption and “a worm, abominable and filthy, and who
drinketh iniquity like water?”(1978) “Who can bring a clean thing out of
an unclean? Not one.”(1979) Then also we shall experience what Job said
concerning himself: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me;
if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.”(1980) For the
complaint, which the prophet formerly made respecting Israel, “All we like
sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;”(1981) is
applicable not only to one period of time, but to all ages. For he there
comprehends all to whom the grace of redemption was to extend; and the
rigour of this examination ought to proceed till it shall have filled us
with complete consternation, and thus prepared us to receive the grace of
Christ. For he is deceived who supposes himself capable of this enjoyment,
without having first been truly humbled. It is a well‐known observation,
that “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.”(1982)

VI. But what means have we of humbling ourselves, except by submitting,
all poor and destitute, to the Divine mercy? For I do not call it
humility, if we suppose that we have any thing left. And hitherto they
have taught a pernicious hypocrisy, who have connected these two
maxims—that we should entertain humble thoughts of ourselves before God,
and that we should attach some dignity to our own righteousness. For if we
address to God a confession which is contrary to our real sentiments, we
are guilty of telling him an impudent falsehood; but we cannot think of
ourselves as we ought to think, without utterly despising every thing that
may be supposed an excellence in us. When we hear, therefore, from the
Psalmist, that “God will save the afflicted people, but will bring down
high looks,”(1983) let us consider, first, that there is no way of
salvation till we have laid aside all pride, and attained sincere
humility; secondly, that this humility is not a species of modesty,
consisting in conceding to God a small portion of what we might justly
claim, as they are called humble among men, who neither haughtily exalt
themselves nor behave with insolence to others, while they nevertheless
entertain some consciousness of excellence: this humility is the unfeigned
submission of a mind overwhelmed with a weighty sense of its own misery
and poverty; for such is the uniform description of it in the word of God.
When the Lord speaks thus in Zephaniah, “I will take away out of the midst
of thee them that rejoice in thy pride; I will also leave in the midst of
thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the
Lord;”(1984) does he not clearly show who are truly humble? even such as
are afflicted with a knowledge of their own poverty. On the contrary, he
describes the proud as persons “rejoicing,” because this is the usual
consequence of prosperity. But to the humble, whom he intends to save, he
leaves nothing but that “they trust in the name of the Lord.” Thus also in
Isaiah, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a
contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”(1985) Again: “Thus saith the
high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell
in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble
spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the
contrite ones.”(1986) By the contrition so frequently mentioned, we must
understand a wounded heart, which prevents a man from rising when humbled
in the dust. With such contrition must our heart be wounded, if we desire,
according to the declaration of the Lord, to be exalted with the humble.
If this be not the case, we shall be abased by the powerful hand of God to
our shame and disgrace.(1987)

VII. And, not content with mere precepts, our excellent Master, in a
parable, as in a picture, has presented us with an example of genuine
humility. For he introduces a publican, who, “standing afar off, would not
lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast,
saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”(1988) We must not conclude these
circumstances—his not presuming to look upwards, standing afar off,
smiting upon his breast, and confessing himself a sinner—to be marks of
feigned modesty; we may be certain that they were sincere evidences of the
disposition of his heart. To him our Lord opposes a Pharisee, who said,
“God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give
tithes of all that I possess.” He openly confesses the righteousness which
he has, to be the gift of God; but because he confides in his being
righteous, he departs from the presence of God unacceptable and hateful to
him. The publican, acknowledging his iniquity, is justified. Hence we may
see how very pleasing our humiliation is in the sight of God; so that the
heart is not open for the reception of his mercy unless it be divested of
all idea of its own dignity. When this notion has occupied the mind, it
precludes the admission of Divine mercy. That no one might have any doubt
of this, Christ was sent by his Father into the world with a commission,
“to preach good tidings unto the meek; to bind up the broken‐hearted; to
proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them
that are bound; to comfort all that mourn; to give unto them beauty for
ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit
of heaviness.”(1989) In pursuance of this commission, he invites to a
participation of his benefits none but those who “labour and are heavy
laden.”(1990) And in another place he says, “I am not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance.”(1991)

VIII. Therefore, if we would obey the call of Christ, let us dismiss all
arrogance and carelessness from our minds. The former arises from a
foolish persuasion of our own righteousness, when a man supposes himself
to be possessed of any thing, the merit of which can recommend him to God;
the latter may exist without any consideration of works. For multitudes of
sinners, inebriated with criminal pleasures, and forgetful of the Divine
judgment, are in a state, as it were, of lethargic insensibility, so that
they never aspire after the mercy which is offered to them. But it is
equally necessary for us to shake off such stupidity, and to reject all
confidence in ourselves, in order that, being freed from every
incumbrance, we may hasten to Christ, all destitute and hungry, to be
filled with his blessings. For we shall never have sufficient confidence
in him, unless we entirely lose all confidence in ourselves; we shall
never find sufficient encouragement in him, unless we are previously
dejected in ourselves; we shall never enjoy sufficient consolation in him,
unless we are utterly disconsolate in ourselves. We are prepared,
therefore, to seek and obtain the grace of God, discarding at the same
time all confidence in ourselves, and relying solely on the assurance of
his mercy, “when,” as Augustine says, “forgetting our own merits, we
embrace the free gifts of Christ; because, if he sought merits in us, we
should not come to his free gifts.” With him Bernard fully agrees, when he
compares proud men, that arrogate ever so little to their own merits, to
unfaithful servants, because they unjustly claim the praise of the grace
which passes through them; just as though a wall should say that it
produces the sunbeams which it receives through a window. But not to dwell
any longer on this, we may lay it down as a brief, but general and certain
maxim, that he is prepared for a participation of the benefits of Divine
mercy, who has wholly divested himself, I will not say of his
righteousness, which is a mere nullity, but of the vain and airy phantom
of righteousness; for as far as any man is satisfied with himself, so far
he raises an impediment to the exercise of the grace of God.

Chapter XIII. Two Things Necessary To Be Observed In Gratuitous
Justification.

Here are two things to which we must always be particularly attentive; to
maintain the glory of the Lord unimpaired and undiminished, and to
preserve in our own consciences a placid composure and serene tranquillity
with regard to the Divine judgment. We see how frequently and solicitously
the Scripture exhorts us to render ascriptions of praise to God alone,
when it treats of justification. And, indeed, the apostle assures us that
the design of the Lord in conferring righteousness upon us in Christ, is
to manifest his own righteousness. The nature of that manifestation he
immediately subjoins: it is, “that he might be just, and the justifier of
him which believeth in Jesus.”(1992) The righteousness of God, we see, is
not sufficiently illustrious, unless he alone be esteemed righteous, and
communicate the grace of justification to the unworthy. For this reason it
is his will “that every mouth be stopped, and all the world become guilty
before him;”(1993) because, as long as man has any thing to allege in his
own defence, it detracts something from the glory of God. Thus in Ezekiel
he teaches us how greatly we glorify his name by an acknowledgment of our
iniquity: “Ye shall remember your ways, (saith he,) and all your doings,
wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own
sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I
am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name’s sake, not
according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt
doings.”(1994) If these things are contained in the true knowledge of God,
that, humbled with a consciousness of our iniquity, we should consider him
as indulging us with blessings of which we are unworthy, why do we
attempt, to our own serious injury, to pilfer the smallest particle of the
praise due to his gratuitous goodness? Thus also when Jeremiah proclaims,
“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man
glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him
that glorieth glory in the Lord;”(1995) does he not suggest that the glory
of God sustains some diminution, if any man glory in himself? To this use
these words are clearly applied by Paul, when he states, that all the
branches of our salvation are deposited with Christ, that we may not glory
except in the Lord.(1996) For he intimates, that they who suppose
themselves to have even the least ground for glorying in themselves, are
guilty of rebelling against God, and obscuring his glory.

II. The truth, then, is, that we never truly glory in him, till we have
entirely renounced all glory of our own. On the converse, this may be
admitted as an axiom universally true, that they who glory in themselves,
glory in opposition to God. For Paul is of opinion that the world is not
“subject to the judgment of God,” till men are deprived of all foundation
for glorying.(1997) Therefore Isaiah, when he announces, that “in the Lord
shall all the seed of Israel be justified,” adds also, “and shall glory;”
as though he had said, that the end of God in justifying the elect was,
that they might glory in himself, and in no other. But how we should glory
in the Lord, he had stated in the preceding verse: “Surely, shall one say,
in the Lord have I righteousness and strength.” Let us observe, that what
is required is not a simple confession, but a confession confirmed by an
oath; that we may not suppose any fictitious pretence of humility to be
sufficient.(1998) Here let no one plead that he does not glory at all,
when without arrogance he recognizes his own righteousness; for such an
opinion cannot exist without generating confidence, nor confidence without
being attended with glorying. Let us remember, therefore, in the whole
controversy concerning righteousness, that this end must be kept in view,
that all the praise of it may remain perfect and undiminished with the
Lord; because, according to the apostle’s testimony, he has bestowed his
grace on us in order “to declare his righteousness; that he might be just,
and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”(1999) Wherefore, in
another place, after having declared that the Lord has conferred salvation
on us in order to display “the praise of the glory of his grace,”(2000)
repeating, as it were, the same sentiment, he adds, “By grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of
works, lest any man should boast.”(2001) And when Peter admonishes us that
we are called to the hope of salvation, “that we should show forth the
praises (or virtues) of him who hath called us out of darkness into his
marvellous light,”(2002) he evidently means that the praises of God alone
should resound in the ears of believers, so as to impose total silence on
all the presumption of the flesh. The conclusion of the whole is, that man
cannot without sacrilege arrogate to himself the least particle of
righteousness, because it is so much detracted and diminished from the
glory of the righteousness of God.

III. Now, if we inquire by what means the conscience can obtain peace
before God, we shall find no other than our reception of gratuitous
righteousness from his free gift. Let us always remember the inquiry of
Solomon—“Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my
sin?”(2003) It is certain that there is no man who is not covered with
infinite pollution. Let a man of the most perfect character, then, retire
into his own conscience, and enter into a scrutiny of his actions, and
what will be the result? Will he feel a high degree of satisfaction, as
though there were the most entire agreement between God and him? or will
he not rather be lacerated with terrible agonies, on perceiving in himself
such ample cause for condemnation, if he be judged according to his works?
If the conscience reflect on God, it must either enjoy a solid peace with
his judgment, or be surrounded with the terrors of hell. We gain nothing,
therefore, in our discussions of this point, unless we establish a
righteousness, the stability of which will support our souls under the
scrutiny of the Divine judgment. When our souls shall possess what will
enable them to appear with boldness in the presence of God, and to await
and receive his judgment without any fear, then, and not before, we may be
assured that we have found a righteousness which truly deserves the name.
It is not without reason, therefore, that this subject is so largely
insisted on by the apostle, whose words I prefer to my own: “For if they
which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made
of none effect.”(2004) He first infers, that faith is annulled and
superseded, if the promise of righteousness respect the merit of our
works, or depend on our observance of the law. For no man could ever
securely rely on it, since he never would be able to determine with
certainty for himself that he had fulfilled the law, as in fact no man
ever does completely satisfy it by any works of his own. Not to seek far
for testimonies of this fact, every individual may be his own witness of
it, who will enter unprejudiced into an examination of himself. And hence
it appears in what deep and dark recesses hypocrisy buries the minds of
men, while they indulge themselves in such great security, and hesitate
not to oppose their self‐adulation to the judgment of God, as though they
would stop the proceedings of his tribunal. But believers, who sincerely
examine themselves, are troubled and distressed with a solicitude of a
very different nature. The minds of men universally, therefore, ought to
feel first hesitation, and then despair, while considering, every one for
himself, the magnitude of the debt with which they are still oppressed,
and their immense distance from the conditions prescribed to them. Behold
their confidence already broken and extinguished; for to confide is not to
fluctuate, to vary, to be hurried hither and thither, to hesitate, to be
kept in suspense, to stagger, and finally to despair; but it is, to
strengthen the mind with content, certainty, and solid security, and to
have somewhat upon which to stand and to rest.

IV. He adds likewise another consideration, that the promise would be void
and of none effect. For if the fulfilment of it depend on our merit, when
shall we have made such a progress as to deserve the favour of God?
Besides, this second argument is a consequence of the former, since the
promise will be fulfilled to those alone who shall exercise faith in it.
Therefore, if faith be wanting, the promise will retain no force.
“Therefore the inheritance is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the
end the promise might be sure to all the seed.”(2005) For it is abundantly
confirmed, when it depends solely on the Divine mercy; because mercy and
truth are connected by an indissoluble bond, and whatever God mercifully
promises, he also faithfully performs. Thus David, before he implores
salvation for himself according to the word of God, first represents it as
originating in his mercy: “According to thy word unto thy servant, let thy
tender mercies come unto me, that I may live.”(2006) And for this there is
sufficient reason, since God has no other inducement to promise than what
arises from his mere mercy. Here, then, we must place, and, as it were,
deeply fix, all our hopes, without regarding our own works, or seeking any
assistance from them. Nor must it be supposed that we are advancing a new
doctrine, for the same conduct is recommended by Augustine. “Christ,” says
he, “will reign in his servants for ever. God has promised this, God has
said it; if that be insufficient, God has sworn it. Since the promise,
therefore, is established, not according to our merits, but according to
his mercy, no man ought to speak with anxiety of that which he cannot
doubt.” Bernard also says, “The disciples of Christ asked, Who can be
saved? He replied, With men this is impossible, but not with God. This is
all our confidence, this our only consolation, this the whole foundation
of our hope. But certain of the possibility, what think we of his will?
Who knows whether he deserve love or hatred?(2007) Who has known the mind
of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?(2008) Here, now, we evidently
need faith to help us, and his truth to assist us; that what is concealed
from us in the heart of the Father, may be revealed by the Spirit, and
that the testimony of the Spirit may persuade our hearts that we are sons
of God; that he may persuade us by calling and justifying us freely by
faith; in which there is, as it were, an intermediate passage from eternal
predestination to future glory.” Let us draw the following brief
conclusion: The Scripture declares that the promises of God have no
efficacy, unless they be embraced by the conscience with a steady
confidence; and whenever there is any doubt or uncertainty, it pronounces
them to be made void. Again, it asserts that they have no stability if
they depend on our works. Either, therefore, we must be for ever destitute
of righteousness, or our works must not come into consideration, but the
ground must be occupied by faith alone, whose nature it is to open the
ears and shut the eyes; that is, to be intent only on the promise, and to
avert the thoughts from all human dignity or merit. Thus is accomplished
that remarkable prophecy of Zechariah: “I will remove the iniquity of that
land in one day. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every
man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig‐tree;”(2009) in which
the prophet suggests that believers enjoy no true peace till after they
have obtained the remission of their sins. For this analogy must be
observed in the prophets, that when they treat of the kingdom of Christ,
they exhibit the external bounties of God as figures of spiritual
blessings. Wherefore also Christ is denominated “the Prince of peace,” and
“our Peace;”(2010) because he calms all the agitations of the conscience.
If we inquire, by what means; we must come to the sacrifice by which God
is appeased. For no man will ever lose his fears who shall not be assured
that God is propitiated solely by that atonement which Christ has made by
sustaining his wrath. In short, we must seek for peace only in the terrors
of Christ our Redeemer.

V. But why do I use such an obscure testimony? Paul invariably denies that
peace or tranquillity can be enjoyed in the conscience, without a
certainty that we are justified by faith.(2011) And he also declares
whence that certainty proceeds; it is “because the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost;”(2012) as though he had said that
our consciences can never be satisfied without a certain persuasion of our
acceptance with God. Hence he exclaims in the name of all believers, “Who
shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ?”(2013) For till
we have reached that port of safety, we shall tremble with alarm at every
slightest breeze; but while God shall manifest himself as our Shepherd, we
shall fear no evil even in the valley of the shadow of death.(2014)
Whoever they are, therefore, who pretend that we are justified by faith,
because, being regenerated, we are righteous by living a spiritual life,
they have never tasted the sweetness of grace, so as to have confidence
that God would be propitious to them. Whence also it follows, that they
know no more of the method of praying aright, than the Turks or any other
profane nations. For according to the testimony of Paul, faith is not
genuine unless it dictate and suggest that most delightful name of Father,
and unless it open our mouth freely to cry, “Abba, Father;”(2015) which he
in another place expresses still more clearly: “In Christ we have boldness
and access with confidence by the faith of him.”(2016) This certainly
arises not from the gift of regeneration; which, being always imperfect in
the present state, contains in itself abundant occasion of doubting.
Wherefore it is necessary to come to this remedy; that believers should
conclude that they cannot hope for an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven
on any other foundation, but because, being ingrafted into the body of
Christ, they are gratuitously accounted righteous. For with respect to
justification, faith is a thing merely passive, bringing nothing of our
own to conciliate the favour of God, but receiving what we need from
Christ.

FOOTNOTES

1 It is not uncommon, among persons of a certain class, to represent
the leading principles of Calvin as unfavourable to practical
religion, and to that kind of preaching which is adapted to affect
the hearts and consciences of the hearers. A reference to the most
able and intelligent theologians and preachers who have held those
principles, and upon whom they may reasonably be concluded to have
exerted their genuine and fullest influence, will amply evince the
inaccuracy of this representation. Of the excellent divine quoted
above, King Charles I. was wont to say, that “he carried his ears to
hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Saunderson.”

2 Prov. xxix. 18.

3 Dan. ii. 34. Isaiah xi. 4. Psalm ii. 9.

4 Rom. xii. 6.

5 Jer. ii. 13.

6 Rom. viii. 32.

7 1 Tim. iv. 10.

8 John xvii. 3.

9 Rom. iv. 25. 1 Cor. xv. 3, 17.

10 Isaiah i. 3.

11 Mark xvi. 20.

12 Acts xiv. 3.

13 Heb. ii. 3, 4.

14 John vii. 18. viii. 50.

15 In Joan. tract. 13.

16 Matt. xxiv. 24.

17 2 Thess. ii. 9.

18 2 Cor. xi. 14.

19 Hierom. in præf. Jerem.

20 2 Thess. ii. 10, 11.

21 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23.

22 Prov. xxii. 28.

23 Psalm xlv. 10.

24 Acat. in lib. 11. cap. 16. Trip. Hist. Amb. lib. 2. de Off. c. 28.

25 Spiridion. Trip. Hist. lib. 1. c. 10.

26 Trip. Hist. lib. 8. c. 1. August. de Opere Mon. c. 17.

27 Epiph. Epist. ab. Hier. vers. Con. Eliber. c. 36.

28 Amb. de Abra. lib. 1. c. 7.

29 Gelas. Pap. in Conc. Rom.

30 Chrys. in 1 Cap. Ephes. Calix. Papa de Cons. dist. 2.

31 Gelas. can. Comperimus de Cons. dist. 2. Cypr. Epist. 2. lib. 1, de
Laps.

32 August. lib. 2. de Pec. Mer. cap. ult.

33 Apollon. de quo Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 11, 12.

34 Paphnut. Trip. Hist. lib. 2. c. 14. Cypr. Epist. 2. lib. 2.

35 Aug. cap. 2. contr. Cresc. Grammatic.

36 Isaiah viii. 12, 13.

37 Epist. 3. lib. 2. et in Epist. ad Julian. de Hæret. baptiz.

38 Matt. xxviii. 20.

39 1 Kings xix. 14, 18.

40 Contr. Auxent.

41 2 Tim. ii. 19.

42 Exod. xxxii. 4.

43 1 Kings xxii. 6, 11‐23.

44 Jer. xviii. 18.

45 Jer. iv. 9.

46 Matt. xxvi. 3, 4.

47 1 Kings xviii. 17.

48 Luke xxiii. 2, 5.

49 Acts xvii. 6. xxiv. 5.

50 2 Pet. iii. 16.

51 Rom. v. 20. vi. 1, 14, 15.

52 Phil. i. 15, 16.

53 Phil. ii. 21.

54 2 Pet. ii. 22.

55 1 Pet. ii. 8.

56 Luke ii. 34.

57 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.

58 Rom. i. 16.

59 1 Cor. xiv. 33.

60 1 John iii. 8. Gal. ii. 17.

61 Acts xvii. 2.

62 Judg. xiii. 22.

63 Gen. xviii. 27.

64 1 Kings xix. 13.

65 Isaiah vi. 2; xxiv. 23.

66 Rom. i. 20.

67 Cicer. de Natur. Deor. lib. i. Lactant. Inst. lib. iii. cap. 10.

68 Cicer. de Nat. Deor. lib. 1 & 3. Valer. Maxim. lib. 1, cap. 1.

69 In Phæd. & Theæt.

70 Rom. i. 22.

71 Psalm xiv. 1.

72 Isaiah vi. 9.

73 Psalm xxxvi. 1.

74 Psalm x. 11.

75 2 Tim. ii. 13.

76 Gal. iv. 8.

77 Eph. ii. 12.

78 Statii Thebaid. lib. 3.

79 Psalm civ. 2.

80 Heb. xi. 3.

81 Psalm xix. 1, 3.

82 Rom. i. 20.

83 Macrob. lib. 2. de Somn. Scip. c. 12. Boet. de Defin. Arist. lib. 1.
de Hist. Animal.

84 Acts xvii. 27.

85 Psalm viii. 2, 4.

86 Acts xvii. 28.

87 Æneid vi. Pitt’s Translation.

88 Georg. iv. Warton’s Translation.

89 De Rerum Natur. lib. 1.

90 Psalm cxlv. 9.

91 Psalm cvii.

92 Psalm cvii. 43.

93 Psalm cxiii. 7.

94 1 Cor. iii. 19.

95 Acts xvii. 27.

96 Psalm cxlv. 6.

97 Aug. in Psal. cxliv.

98 De Civit. Dei. lib. 1, cap. 8.

99 Psalm xcii. 6.

100 Psalm xl. 12.

101 Plut. de Philosoph. placitis, lib. 1. Plato in Timæo. Cic. lib. 1,
de Natur. Deor.

102 Lactant. Institut. div.

103 Seneca, lib. 4, de benef., &c.

104 Plutarch. lib. 1, de Isid. & Osirid. Cic. lib. 1, de Nat. Deor.

105 Cic. lib. de Nat. Deor.

106 Ephes. ii. 12.

107 Rom. i. 21.

108 Hab. ii. 18, 20.

109 John iv. 22.

110 1 Cor. ii. 8.

111 Xenoph. de Dict. et Fact. Socrat. lib. 1. Cic. de Legib. lib. 2.

112 Heb. xi. 3.

113 Rom. i. 19.

114 Rom. i. 20.

115 Acts xvii. 27.

116 Acts xiv. 16, 17.

117 Rom. x. 4.

118 1 Tim. vi. 16.

119 Ps. xciii. xcvi., &c.

120 Ps. xix. 1, &c.

121 Ps. xciii. 5.

122 John iv. 22.

123 Eph. ii. 20.

124 Contr. Epist. Fundam. cap. 5.

125 Isaiah lix. 21.

126 Isaiah xliii. 10.

127 Isaiah liv. 13.

128 Deut. xxx. Rom. x.

129 Isaiah liii. 1.

130 1 Cor. ii. 4.

131 Gen. xlix. 5.

132 Num. xii. 1.

133 Exod. xxiv. 18; xxxiv. 29; xix. 16; xl. 34. Num. xvi. 24, &c.; xx.
11; xi. 9.

134 Lev. xx. 6.

135 Exod. xvi. 7.

136 Gen. xlix. 10.

137 Deut. xxxii.

138 Isaiah xxxix. 6.

139 Isaiah xlv. 1.

140 Jer. xxv. 11, 12.

141 Isaiah xlii. 9.

142 2 Kings xxii. 8.

143 Deut. xvii. 18.

144 Lib. de Util. Credend.

145 Isaiah lix. 21.

146 1 Tim. iv. 13.

147 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.

148 John xvi. 13.

149 2 Pet. i. 19.

150 2 Cor. iii. 6.

151 Psalm xix. 7.

152 2 Cor. iii. 8.

153 Luke xxiv. 27, &c.

154 1 Thess. v. 19.

155 Exod. xxxiv. 6.

156 Psalm cxlv.

157 Jer. ix. 24.

158 Lib. de Idolol. Vid. Aug. Epist. 43 et 44.

159 Hab. ii. 20.

160 Maximus Tyrius, Plat. Serm. 38.

161 Deut. iv. 15.

162 Isaiah xl. 18; xli. 7, 29; xlvi. 5, &c.

163 Acts xvii. 29.

164 Exod. xxxiii. 11.

165 Deut. iv. 11.

166 Exod. xxxiii. 20.

167 Matt. iii. 16.

168 Exod. xxv. 17, 18, &c.

169 Isaiah vi. 2.

170 Psalm cxxxv. 15.

171 Hor. Sat. lib. 1, 8.

172 Isaiah xliv. 9‐20.

173 Isaiah xl. 21.

174 Psalm cxv. 8.

175 Jer. x. 8.

176 Hab. ii. 18.

177 Gal. iii. 1.

178 Wisdom xiv. 15.

179 Gen. xxxi. 19.

180 Joshua xxiv. 2.

181 Exod. xxxii. 1.

182 Exod. xxxii. 4‐6.

183 In Psalm cxiii.

184 In Psalm cxiii.

185 Epist. 49. De Civ. Dei. lib. iv. cap. 31.

186 Gal. iv. 8.

187 Matt. iv. 10.

188 Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9.

189 Acts x. 25.

190 Zech. xiv. 9.

191 Seneca, Præf. lib. 1. Quæst. Nat.

192 John i. 1.

193 1 Pet. i. 11.

194 Heb. i. 2, 3.

195 John v. 17.

196 James i. 17.

197 Gen. i. 3.

198 John xvii. 5.

199 John i. 2.

200 Exod. vii. 1.

201 Isaiah ix. 6.

202 Jer. xxiii. 6.

203 Isaiah xlii. 8.

204 Ezek. xlviii. 35.

205 Exod. xvii. 15.

206 Jer. xxxiii. 16.

207 Judges xiii. 22, 23.

208 Hosea xii. 5.

209 Gen. xxxii. 29, 30.

210 Isaiah xxv. 9.

211 Mal. iii. 1.

212 Isaiah viii. 14.

213 Rom ix. 33.

214 Rom. xiv. 10, 11.

215 Isaiah xlv. 23.

216 Eph. iv. 8. Psalm lxviii. 18.

217 John xii. 41. Isaiah vi. 1.

218 Heb. i. 6, 10.

219 John i. 1, 14.

220 2 Cor. v. 10.

221 Rom ix. 5.

222 1 Tim. iii. 16.

223 Philip. ii. 6.

224 1 John v. 20.

225 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

226 John xx. 28.

227 John v. 18.

228 Heb. i. 3.

229 Isaiah xliii. 25.

230 Matt. ix. 6.

231 Matt. x. 8. Mark iii. 15.

232 Acts iii. 6.

233 John v. 36; x. 37.

234 Matt. xix. 17.

235 John xiv. 1.

236 Isaiah xxviii. 16; xi. 10. Rom. x. 11; xv. 12.

237 John vi. 47.

238 Joel ii. 32.

239 Prov. xviii. 10.

240 Acts vii. 59.

241 Acts ix. 13, 14.

242 1 Cor. ii. 2.

243 Jer. ix. 24.

244 Gen. i. 2.

245 Isaiah xlviii. 16.

246 1 Cor. ii. 10, 16.

247 1 Cor. xii. 8.

248 Exod. iv. 11.

249 1 Cor. xii. 4, &c.

250 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 16.

251 Acts v. 3, 4.

252 Isaiah vi. 9.

253 Acts xxviii. 25.

254 Isaiah lxiii. 10.

255 Matt. xii. 31. Mark iii. 29. Luke xii. 10.

256 Psalm xxxiii. 6.

257 Ephes. iv. 5.

258 1 Cor. xii. 11.

259 John v. 32; viii. 16, 18.

260 John i. 18.

261 John xv. 26.

262 John xiv. 16.

263 1 Pet. i. 11.

264 John xiv. 10, 11.

265 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9.

266 Joel ii. 28‐32. Acts ii. 16‐21.

267 Gen. i. 2.

268 Isaiah vi. 1.

269 John xii. 41.

270 Isaiah viii. 14.

271 Rom. ix. 33.

272 Isaiah xlv. 23.

273 Rom. xiv. 11.

274 Heb. i. 6, 10. Psalm cii. 25; xcvii. 7.

275 Isaiah xliv. 6.

276 Jer. x. 11.

277 Exod. iii. 14.

278 Matt. xix. 17.

279 1 Tim. i. 17.

280 Phil. ii. 10.

281 Phil. ii. 6, 7.

282 Isaiah xxv. 9.

283 Gen. i. 26.

284 John iv. 24.

285 John xvii. 3.

286 Heb. i. 10; ii. 9.

287 John xiv. 28.

288 1 Cor. xv. 24.

289 1 John v. 20.

290 Isaiah xl. 21.

291 Psalm ciii. 20.

292 Gen. ii. 1.

293 2 Cor. xii. 1, &c.

294 Daniel vii. 10.

295 Ephes. i. 21.

296 Col. i. 16.

297 Gen. xviii. 2; xxxii. 1, 28. Josh. v. 13. Judges vi. 11; xiii. 3,
22.

298 Psalm lxxxii. 6.

299 Psalm xci. 11, 12.

300 Psalm xxxiv. 7.

301 Gen. xvi. 9.

302 Gen. xxiv. 7.

303 Gen. xlviii. 16.

304 Exod. xiv. 19; xxiii. 20.

305 Judges ii. 1; vi. 11; xiii. 3, &c.

306 Matt. iv. 11. Luke xxii. 43. Matt. xxviii. 5. Luke xxiv. 4, 5. Acts
i. 10.

307 2 Kings xix. 35. Isaiah xxxvii. 36.

308 Daniel x. 13, 20; xii. 1.

309 Matt. xviii. 10.

310 Luke xv. 7.

311 Luke xvi. 22.

312 2 Kings vi. 17.

313 Acts xii. 15.

314 Daniel xii. 1. Jude, ver. 9.

315 1 Thess. iv. 16.

316 Daniel x. 13, 21; viii. 16; ix. 21. Luke i. 19, 26. Tob. iii. 17; v.
5.

317 Matt. xxvi. 53.

318 Daniel vii. 10.

319 Psalm xxxiv. 7.

320 Luke xv. 10; iv. 10; xvi. 22. Psalm xci. 12. Matt. iv. 6; xviii. 10.

321 Acts vii. 53. Gal. iii. 19.

322 Matt. xxii. 30; xxiv. 36; xxv. 31. Luke ix. 26.

323 1 Tim. v. 21.

324 Heb. i. 4; ii. 16.

325 Heb. xii. 22, 23.

326 1 Peter i. 12.

327 Heb. i. 6.

328 Mal. iii. 1.

329 Col. i. 16, 20.

330 Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9.

331 2 Kings vi. 15, 16, 17.

332 Gen. xxviii. 12.

333 John i. 51.

334 Gen. xxiv. 7, 12, 27, 52.

335 2 Cor. iv. 4. John xii. 31.

336 Matt. xii. 29. Luke xi. 21.

337 Ephes. ii. 2.

338 1 Peter v. 8, 9.

339 Ephes. vi. 12, &c.

340 Mark xvi. 9.

341 Matt. xii. 43‐45.

342 Luke viii. 30.

343 Matt. xxv. 41.

344 Matt. xiii. 25, 28.

345 John viii. 44.

346 John viii. 44.

347 2 Peter ii. 4. Jude, ver. 6.

348 1 Tim. v. 21.

349 Job i. 6; ii. 1.

350 1 Kings xxii. 20, &c.

351 1 Sam. xvi. 14; xviii. 10.

352 Psalm lxxviii. 49.

353 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11.

354 Ephes. iv. 27.

355 1 Peter v. 8.

356 2 Cor. xii. 7.

357 Gen. iii. 15.

358 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. 1 Chron. xxi. 1.

359 2 Tim. ii. 26.

360 Rom. xvi. 20.

361 John xiv. 30.

362 Luke x. 18.

363 Luke xi. 21.

364 John xii. 31.

365 2 Cor. iv. 4.

366 Eph. ii. 2.

367 Rom. ix. 22.

368 John viii. 44.

369 1 John iii. 10.

370 Matt. xii. 43. Jude 6.

371 John viii. 44. 1 John iii. 10.

372 Jude 9.

373 Job i. 6; ii. 1.

374 Matt. viii. 29.

375 Matt. xxv. 41.

376 2 Peter ii. 4.

377 Gen. i. 28; ix. 2.

378 Gen. ii. 7; iii. 19, 23.

379 Eccles. xii. 7.

380 Luke xxiii. 46.

381 Acts vii. 59.

382 Job iv. 19.

383 2 Cor. v. 4.

384 2 Peter i. 13, 14.

385 2 Cor. v. 10.

386 2 Cor. vii. 1.

387 1 Peter ii. 25.

388 1 Peter i. 9, 22; ii. 11.

389 Heb. xiii. 17.

390 2 Cor. i. 23.

391 Matt. x. 28. Luke xii. 4, 5.

392 Heb. xii. 9.

393 Luke xvi. 22.

394 2 Cor. v. 6, 8.

395 Acts xxiii. 8.

396 Gen. i. 27.

397 Ovid’s Metam. lib. 1. Dryden’s Translation.

398 Gen. i. 26.

399 Matt. xxii. 30.

400 1 Cor. xv. 45.

401 Col. iii. 10.

402 Eph. iv. 24.

403 2 Cor. iii. 18.

404 1 Cor. xi. 7.

405 John i. 4.

406 Gen. ii. 7.

407 Acts xvii. 28.

408 2 Cor. iii. 18.

409 Hebrews xi. 3.

410 Matt. vi. 26; x. 29.

411 Psalm xxxiii. 6.

412 Psalm xxxiii. 13.

413 Psalm civ. 27‐30.

414 Acts xvii. 28.

415 Matt. x. 30.

416 Joshua x. 13.

417 2 Kings xx. 11.

418 Psalm cxv. 3.

419 Psalm viii. 2.

420 Jer. x. 2.

421 Gen. xxii. 8.

422 John v. 17.

423 Acts xvii. 28.

424 Heb. i. 3.

425 Psalm cxlvii. 9.

426 Matt. x. 29.

427 Psalm cxiii. 5, 6.

428 Jer. x. 23.

429 Prov. xx. 24.

430 Prov. xvi. 1.

431 Exod. xxi. 13.

432 Prov. xvi. 33.

433 Prov. xxix. 13.

434 Psalm lxxv. 6, 7.

435 Exod. xvi. 13. Num. xi. 31.

436 Jonah i. 4.

437 Psalm civ. 3, 4.

438 Psalm cvii. 25, 29.

439 Amos iv. 9. Haggai i. 6‐11.

440 Psalm cxxvii. 3.

441 Gen. xxx. 2.

442 Deut. viii. 3.

443 Isaiah iii. 1.

444 Psalm cxxxvi. 25.

445 Psalm xxxiv. 15, 16.

446 Job xiv. 5.

447 1 Sam. vi. 9.

448 Psalm xl. 5.

449 John ix. 3.

450 Psalm xxxvi. 6.

451 Deut. xxx. 12‐14. Rom. x. 6, 7.

452 Rom. xi. 33, 34.

453 Deut. xxix. 29.

454 Job xxvi. 14.

455 Job xxviii. 21, 28.

456 Prov. xvi. 9.

457 Psalm lv. 22. 1 Peter v. 7.

458 Psalm xci. 1.

459 Zech. ii. 8.

460 Isaiah xxvi. 1; xlix. 15.

461 Psalm xci. 12.

462 Matt. x. 29, 30.

463 Exod. iii. 21.

464 1 Kings xxii. 22.

465 1 Kings xii. 10‐15.

466 2 Sam. xvii. 7, 14.

467 Job i. 12.

468 Gen. xlv. 7, 8; l. 20.

469 Job i. 21.

470 2 Sam. xvi. 10.

471 Psalm xxxix. 9.

472 Eph. vi. 12.

473 Deut. xxviii. 1, &c.

474 Lev. xxvi. 23, 24.

475 Lam. iii. 37, 38. Amos iii. 6.

476 Isaiah xlv. 7.

477 2 Sam. x. 12.

478 Psalm xci. 3‐6.

479 Psalm cxviii. 6; xxvii. 1, 3; xxiii. 4.

480 1 Cor. xvi. 7. 1 Thes. ii. 18.

481 Psalm xxxi. 15.

482 Isaiah vii. 4.

483 Ezek. xxix. 3, 4.

484 Gen. vi. 6.

485 1 Sam. xv. 11.

486 Jer. xviii. 8.

487 Jonah iii. 4, 10.

488 Isaiah xxxviii. 1, 5.

489 2 Kings xx. 1, 5.

490 1 Sam. xv. 29.

491 1 Sam. xv. 29.

492 Numb. xxiii. 19.

493 Psalm vii. 11.

494 Gen. xx. 3, 7.

495 Isaiah xiv. 27.

496 Psalm cxv. 3.

497 Job i. 21.

498 1 Kings xxii. 20‐23.

499 Acts iv. 28.

500 Acts ii. 23.

501 Acts iii. 18.

502 2 Sam. xii. 12; xvi. 22.

503 Jer. l. 25.

504 Isaiah v. 26; x. 5; xix. 25.

505 2 Sam. xvi. 10.

506 1 Kings xi. 31.

507 1 Sam. ii. 34.

508 Prov. xxi. 1.

509 Isaiah xxix. 14. Psalm cvii. 40. Ezek. vii. 26.

510 Lev. xxvi. 36.

511 1 Sam. xxvi. 12.

512 Rom. i. 28; xi. 8. Exod. viii. 15.

513 Exod. iv. 21.

514 Deut. ii. 30. Joshua xi. 20.

515 Psalm cv. 25.

516 Isaiah x. 6.

517 1 Sam. xvi. 14.

518 2 Cor. iv. 4.

519 2 Thess. ii. 10‐12.

520 Ezek. xiv. 9.

521 Rom. i. 28.

522 Psalm li. 4.

523 1 John v. 4.

524 Job i. 21.

525 1 Sam. ii. 25.

526 Psalm cxv. 3.

527 Isaiah xlv. 7. Amos iii. 6.

528 Deut. xix. 5.

529 Acts iv. 28.

530 Ephes. iii. 9, 10.

531 1 Tim. vi. 16.

532 Psalm cxi. 2.

533 2 Sam. xvi. 22.

534 2 Sam. xvi. 10.

535 1 Kings xii. 20.

536 Hosea viii. 4.

537 Hosea xiii. 11.

538 1 Kings xi. 23.

539 1 Kings xii. 15. 2 Chron. x. 15.

540 2 Kings x. 7, 8, 9, 10.

541 Rom. v. 19.

542 Rom. viii. 20, 22.

543 Psalm li. 5.

544 Job xiv. 4.

545 Rom. v. 12.

546 Rom. v. 19.

547 1 Cor. xv. 22.

548 Rom. viii. 10.

549 Ephes. ii. 3.

550 John iii. 5, 6.

551 Gal. v. 19.

552 Rom. v. 12.

553 Rom. vii. 18.

554 Ephes. iv. 17, 18.

555 Ephes. iv. 23.

556 Rom. xii. 2.

557 Rom. viii. 6, 7.

558 Eccles. vii. 29.

559 Ephes. ii. 3.

560 2 Cor. iii. 17.

561 2 Peter ii. 19.

562 John xv. 5.

563 Gen. iii. 5.

564 Jer. xvii. 5.

565 Psalm cxlvii. 10.

566 Isaiah xl. 29‐31.

567 James iv. 6.

568 Isaiah xliv. 3.

569 Isaiah lv. 1.

570 Isaiah lx. 16.

571 John i. 5.

572 Exod. xxxi. 2‐11; xxxv. 30‐35.

573 Judges vi. 34; xv. 14.

574 1 Sam. x. 26.

575 1 Sam. x. 6.

576 1 Sam. xvi. 13.

577 Job xii. 24. Psalm cvii. 40.

578 John i. 4.

579 John i. 13.

580 Matt. xvi. 17.

581 Psalm xxxvi. 9.

582 1 Cor. xii. 3.

583 John iii. 27.

584 Deut. xxix. 3, 4.

585 Jer. xxiv. 7.

586 John vi. 44.

587 Heb. i. 3.

588 1 Cor. ii. 14.

589 1 Cor. ii. 9.

590 1 Cor. i. 20.

591 Eph. i. 17.

592 Psalm cxix. 18.

593 James i. 17.

594 John xvi. 14.

595 Rom. ii. 14, 15.

596 2 Cor. iii. 5.

597 Psalm xciv. 11.

598 Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21.

599 Psalm cxix. 34.

600 Col. i. 9. Phil. i. 4.

601 Col. i. 9.

602 Psalm li. 10.

603 Rom. vii. 18, 19.

604 Rom. vii. 20.

605 Rom. vii. 22, 23.

606 2 Cor. iii. 5.

607 Gen. viii. 21.

608 John viii. 34.

609 Phil. ii. 13.

610 Psalm cxix.

611 Psalm li. 10.

612 John iii. 6.

613 Rom. viii. 6, 7.

614 Eph. iv. 22, 23.

615 Ephes. iv. 17, 18.

616 Isaiah lx. 1, &c.

617 Psalm lxii. 9.

618 Jer. xvii. 9.

619 Rom. iii. 10‐18.

620 Isaiah xi. 2.

621 Psalm cxi. 10.

622 Jer. xxxi. 18.

623 Jer. xxxi. 11.

624 Phil. i. 6.

625 Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27.

626 2 Cor. iii. 5.

627 Phil. ii. 13.

628 1 Cor. xii. 6.

629 1 Cor. i. 30.

630 Eph. ii. 10.

631 Psalm c. 3.

632 John vi. 45.

633 Jer. xxxii. 39.

634 Ezek. xi. 19.

635 1 Kings viii. 56.

636 Psalm cxix. 36.

637 Psalm li. 10.

638 John xv. 1, 4, 5.

639 Matt. xv. 13.

640 Phil. ii. 13.

641 1 Cor. xii. 6.

642 Psalm lxxxvi. 11.

643 Psalm cxix. 133.

644 Ezek. xi. 19, 20; xxxvi. 27.

645 John vi. 45.

646 John vi. 44.

647 1 John iii. 9.

648 Matt. xxv. 23, 29. Luke xix. 17, 26.

649 Phil. ii. 13.

650 1 Cor. xv. 10.

651 Psalm lix. 10.

652 Psalm xxiii. 6.

653 2 Cor. xii. 9.

654 2 Cor. iv. 4.

655 Eph. ii. 2.

656 Job i.

657 Deut. ii. 30.

658 Job xii. 20, 24.

659 Isaiah lxiii. 17.

660 Exod. iv. 21.

661 Exod. vii. 3.

662 Deut. ii. 30.

663 Psalm cv. 25.

664 Isaiah v. 26; vii. 18.

665 Ezek. xii. 13; xvii. 20.

666 Jer. l. 23.

667 Isaiah x. 15.

668 1 Sam. xvi. 14; xviii. 19; xix. 19.

669 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12.

670 Exod. xi. 3.

671 Gen. xliii. 14.

672 Psalm cvi. 46.

673 1 Sam. xi. 6.

674 2 Sam. xvii. 14.

675 1 Kings xii. 10.

676 Lev. xxvi. 36.

677 Prov. xx. 12.

678 Prov. xxi. 1.

679 Rom. viii. 29.

680 1 Cor. iv. 7.

681 John xv. 5.

682 1 Cor. iii. 3.

683 Rom. ix. 16.

684 1 Cor. iii. 7.

685 Ezek. xi. 19, 20.

686 John vi. 44, 45.

687 2 Cor. ii. 16.

688 Gal. iii. 19. Rom. iii. 20; iv. 15; v. 20.

689 1 Tim. i. 5.

690 1 Thess. iii. 12.

691 Joel ii. 12.

692 Jer. xxxi. 18, 19.

693 Deut. x. 16, and xxx. 6.

694 Jer. iv. 4. Ezek. xxxvi. 26.

695 Acts xiii. 43.

696 Eph. vi. 10.

697 Eph. iv. 30.

698 2 Thess. i. 11.

699 2 Cor. viii. 1, &c.

700 Zech. i. 3.

701 Jer. xxxi. 32.

702 Amos v. 14. Isaiah i. 19, 20.

703 Jer. iv. 1. Deut. xxviii. 1.

704 Numb. xiv. 43.

705 Jer. vii. 13, 14.

706 Jer. vii. 28, 29.

707 Jer. xxxii. 23.

708 Jer. vii. 27.

709 Psalm lxxviii. 8.

710 Psalm xcv. 8.

711 Prov. xvi. 1.

712 Psalm cxix. 112.

713 Psalm cxix. 33‐40.

714 Phil. ii. 12.

715 2 Peter i. 5.

716 1 Thess. v. 19.

717 2 Cor. vii. 1.

718 1 John v. 18.

719 John xvii. 15.

720 1 Peter i. 22.

721 1 John iii. 9.

722 1 John v. 4.

723 Deut. xxx. 11‐14.

724 Rom. x. 8.

725 Deut. xxx. 6.

726 Hos. v. 15.

727 Gen. iv. 7.

728 Rom. ix. 16.

729 Tit. iii. 4, 5.

730 Epist. 107, ad Vital.

731 1 Cor. iii. 9.

732 Ecclus. xv. 14.

733 Eccles. vii. 29.

734 Luke x. 30.

735 Eph. ii. 5; v. 14.

736 John v. 25.

737 1 Cor. i. 21.

738 John xvii. 3.

739 John iv. 22.

740 Ephes. ii. 12.

741 John i. 4.

742 John i. 12.

743 Gal. iii. 16.

744 1 Sam. ii. 10.

745 Psalm ii. 12.

746 John v. 24.

747 1 Kings xi. 13.

748 1 Kings xi. 39.

749 1 Kings xv. 4.

750 2 Kings viii. 19.

751 Psalm lxxviii. 60, 67, 68, 70, 71.

752 Psalm xxviii. 8.

753 Psalm xx. 9.

754 Psalm cxviii. 25, 26.

755 Psalm lxxx. 17.

756 Lam. iv. 20.

757 Hab. iii. 13.

758 Isaiah vii. 14.

759 Isaiah lv. 3.

760 Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.

761 Ezek. xxxiv. 23‐25.

762 Ezek. xxxvii. 24, 26.

763 Hos. i. 11.

764 Hos. iii. 5.

765 Mic. ii. 13.

766 Amos ix. 11.

767 Zech. ix. 9.

768 Psalm xxviii. 8, 9.

769 Matt. xxi. 9.

770 John xiv. 1.

771 Col. i. 15.

772 Rom. x. 4.

773 Lib. 4, c. 8.

774 1 John ii. 23.

775 Acts vii. 44. Heb. viii. 5. Ex. xxv. 40.

776 Exod. xix. 6.

777 1 Peter ii. 9.

778 Gal. iii. 24.

779 Isaiah liii. 5, &c.

780 Dan. ix. 26, &c.

781 Psalm cx. 4.

782 Rom. x. 4.

783 2 Cor. iii. 17.

784 Gal. iii. 19.

785 Deut. xxx. 15, 19.

786 Eccles. vii. 20.

787 Psalm cxliii. 2.

788 Job iv. 17; ix. 2; xv. 14; xxv. 4.

789 Gal. v. 17.

790 Gal. iii. 10.

791 Lib. de Nat. et Grat.

792 Matt. xix. 25, 26.

793 Rom. viii. 3, &c.

794 Rom. vii. 7.

795 Rom. iii. 20.

796 Rom. v. 20.

797 2 Cor. iii. 7. Rom. iv. 15.

798 Rom. iii. 19.

799 Rom. xi. 32.

800 1 Tim. i. 9, 10.

801 Gal. iii. 24.

802 Psalm xix. 7, 8.

803 Psalm cxix. 105.

804 Deut. xxxii. 46, 47.

805 Psalm i. 2.

806 Matt. v. 17, 18.

807 Gal. iii. 10.

808 Gal. iii. 13.

809 Gal. iv. 4, 5.

810 Col. ii. 17.

811 Matt. xxvii. 51.

812 Luke xvi. 16.

813 John i. 17.

814 Col. ii. 13, 14.

815 Ephes. ii. 14, 15.

816 Heb. x. 3‐14.

817 Heb. ix. 15.

818 Lev. xviii. 5.

819 Ezek. xviii. 4.

820 Deut. xii. 28, 32.

821 Deut. iv. 5, 6, 9.

822 Rom. vii. 14.

823 Matt. v. 22, 28.

824 Matt. xxii. 37‐40. Luke x. 27.

825 Rom. xi. 36.

826 Jer. xxxi. 33.

827 Matt. xxii. 32.

828 Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 2; xxvi. 18.

829 Lev. xi. 44.

830 Mal. i. 6.

831 Exod. iii. 6. Amos i. 2. Hab. ii. 20. Psalm lxxx. 1; xcix. 1. Isaiah
xxxvii. 16.

832 Deut. iv. 17.

833 Cap. xi. xii.

834 Jer. iii. 1, 2. Hos. ii. 2.

835 Ezek. xviii. 20.

836 Num. xiv. 18.

837 Jer. xxxii. 18.

838 Isaiah xxxix. 7.

839 Gen. xii. 17; xx. 3.

840 Ezek. xviii. 2.

841 Gen. xvii. 7.

842 Prov. xx. 7.

843 Isaiah xix. 18.

844 Isaiah lxv. 16.

845 Jer. xii. 16.

846 Jer. v. 7.

847 Zeph. i. 4, 5.

848 Lev. xix. 12.

849 Joshua vii. 19.

850 John ix. 24.

851 1 Sam. xiv. 45.

852 2 Kings vi. 31.

853 2 Cor. i. 23.

854 Deut. vi. 13.

855 Exod. xxiii. 13.

856 Heb. vi. 13, 16.

857 Matt. v. 34.

858 Exod. xxii. 11.

859 John x. 30, 18; vii. 16.

860 James v. 12.

861 Heb. vi. 16.

862 Gen. xxi. 24; xxvi. 31; xxxi. 53.

863 Ruth iii. 13.

864 1 Kings xviii. 10.

865 Numb. xiii. 22. Ezek. xx. 12; xxii. 8; xxiii. 38.

866 Jer. xvii. 21, 22, 27. Isaiah lvi. 2.

867 Neh. ix. 14.

868 Exod. xxxi. 13, 14, 16, 17.

869 Ezek. xx. 12.

870 Heb. iv. 9.

871 Isaiah lxvi. 23.

872 1 Cor. xv. 28.

873 Isaiah lviii. 13, 14.

874 Rom. vi. 4, &c.

875 Col. ii. 16, 17.

876 Deut. v. 14, 15.

877 Exod. xxiii. 12.

878 1 Cor. xiv. 40.

879 Col. ii. 16, 17.

880 Gal. iv. 10, 11.

881 Rom. xiv. 5.

882 1 Tim. v. 17.

883 Exod. xxi. 17.

884 Deut. xxi. 18‐21.

885 Matt. xv. 4‐6.

886 Eph. vi. 1. Col. iii. 20.

887 1 John iii. 15.

888 Matt. v. 22.

889 Matt. xix. 11.

890 Matt. xix. 12.

891 1 Cor. vii. 7.

892 1 Cor. vii. 2, 9.

893 1 Cor. vii. 34.

894 1 Cor. vii. 9.

895 Exod. xxiii. 1, 7.

896 Lev. xix. 16.

897 Deut. x. 12, 13.

898 Deut. xi. 22.

899 Luke x. 27.

900 1 Tim. i. 5.

901 Matt. xxiii. 23.

902 Matt. xix. 18, 19.

903 Psalm xvi. 2.

904 Ephes. iii. 17.

905 Rom. xiii. 8.

906 Gal. v. 14.

907 Matt. vii. 12.

908 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

909 Prov. xxv. 21.

910 Exod. xxiii. 4, 5.

911 Rom. xii. 19.

912 Lev. xix. 18.

913 Matt. v. 44, 45.

914 Matt. v. 46.

915 Rom. xiii. 9.

916 Rom. vi. 23.

917 Matt. v. 19.

918 Ezek. xviii. 20.

919 Rom. vi. 23.

920 Mal. iv. 2.

921 1 Peter i. 10‐12.

922 John v. 46.

923 Matt. xiii. 16.

924 Luke x. 24.

925 John viii. 56.

926 John i. 18.

927 Heb. i. 1, 2.

928 Heb. i. 3.

929 2 Cor. iv. 6.

930 2 Cor. iv. 4.

931 1 Tim. iv. 6.

932 Matt. ix. 35.

933 2 Tim. i. 10.

934 2 Cor. i. 20.

935 John i. 51.

936 Col. i. 5.

937 1 John iii. 2.

938 1 Tim. iv. 8.

939 2 Tim. i. 1.

940 2 Cor. vii. 1.

941 Ephes. i. 13.

942 Rom. i. 16; iii. 21.

943 Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

944 John i. 29.

945 Matt. xi. 11.

946 John i. 23.

947 Mal. iv. 5.

948 John v. 35.

949 Rom. i. 1‐3.

950 Rom. iii. 21.

951 Ephes. i. 13, 14.

952 Col. i. 4, 5.

953 2 Thess. ii. 14.

954 Rom. iii. 19.

955 John viii. 56.

956 Heb. xiii. 8.

957 Luke i. 54, 72.

958 1 Cor. x. 1‐11.

959 John vi. 49, 51.

960 1 Peter i. 23, 25.

961 Isaiah xl. 8.

962 Lev. xxvi. 12.

963 Psalm cxliv. 15; xxxiii. 12.

964 Hab. i. 12.

965 Isaiah xxxiii. 22.

966 Deut. xxxiii. 29.

967 Lev. xxvi. 12.

968 Exod. vi. 7.

969 Gen. xvii. 7.

970 Exod. xx. 6.

971 Exod. iii. 6.

972 Matt. xxii. 32‐34. Luke xx. 37‐40.

973 Deut. xxxiii. 3.

974 Gen. iii. 17‐19.

975 Gen. iv. 8, 14.

976 Gen. vi. 14‐21.

977 Gen. vii. 11; viii. 13.

978 Gen. ix. 24, 25.

979 Gen. xii. 1.

980 Gen. xii. 10‐15.

981 Gen. xx. 1, 2.

982 Gen. xiii. 7‐11.

983 Gen. xiv. 12, 13.

984 Gen. xxi. 25‐30.

985 Gen. xv. 2.

986 Gen. xvi. 1‐15.

987 Gen. xxi. 2, 3, 10‐14.

988 Gen. xxii. 2.

989 Gen. xxvi. 1, 7, 20, 21.

990 Gen. xxvi. 34, 35.

991 Gen. xxviii. 5.

992 Gen. xxvii. 41‐45.

993 Gen. xxix. 20, 23, 25.

994 Gen. xxix. 27.

995 Gen. xxxi. 40, 41.

996 Gen. xxx. 1.

997 Gen. xxxi. 25, 36.

998 Gen. xxxii. xxxiii.

999 Gen. xxxv. 19.

1000 Gen. xxxvii. 32‐35.

1001 Gen. xxxiv.

1002 Gen. xxxv. 22.

1003 Gen. xxxviii. 13‐18.

1004 Gen. xlii.

1005 Gen. xlvii. 9.

1006 Heb. xi. 9, &c.

1007 Gen. xlvii. 9.

1008 Gen. xlvii. 30.

1009 Gen. l. 25.

1010 Gen. xlix. 18.

1011 Numb. xxiii. 10.

1012 Psalm cxvi. 15.

1013 Psalm xxxiv. 21.

1014 Psalm xxxix. 12, 5, 6, 7.

1015 Psalm ciii. 17.

1016 Psalm cii. 25‐28.

1017 Isaiah li. 6.

1018 Psalm xcvii. 10, 11.

1019 Psalm cxii. 9, 10.

1020 Psalm cxl. 13.

1021 Psalm cxii. 6.

1022 Psalm xxxiv. 22.

1023 Psalm lxxiii. 2.

1024 Psalm lxxiii. 16, 17.

1025 Psalm xvii. 15.

1026 Psalm lii. 8.

1027 Psalm xcii. 12‐14, 5, 7.

1028 Psalm lv. 22, 23.

1029 Job xxi. 13.

1030 Psalm xlix. 6, &c.

1031 Psalm xxx. 5.

1032 Isaiah liv. 7, 8.

1033 Prov. x. 7.

1034 Psalm cxvi. 15.

1035 1 Sam. ii. 9.

1036 Ezek. xxviii. 10; xxxi. 18.

1037 Psalm lxix. 28.

1038 Job xix. 25, &c.

1039 Job xiii. 15.

1040 Ezek. xxxvii.

1041 Isaiah xxvi. 19‐21.

1042 Isaiah lxvi. 22‐24.

1043 Dan. xii. 1, 2.

1044 Matt. viii. 11.

1045 Acts iii. 25.

1046 Matt. xxvii. 52.

1047 Acts xv. 8.

1048 Eph. i. 14.

1049 2 Cor. iii. 14‐16.

1050 Gal. iv.

1051 Gen. xv. 1.

1052 Psalm lxxxiv. 2.

1053 Psalm lxxiii. 26.

1054 Psalm xvi. 5.

1055 Psalm cxlii. 5.

1056 Psalm xxxvii. 29.

1057 Prov. ii. 22.

1058 Psalm cxxxiii. 3.

1059 Col. ii. 17.

1060 Heb. x. 1, &c.

1061 Heb. vii. 17. Psalm cx. 4.

1062 Heb. vii. 23, 24.

1063 Heb. vii. 20, 21.

1064 Heb. vii. 12.

1065 Heb. vii. 19.

1066 Heb. ix. 13, 14; x. 4.

1067 Heb. x. 1.

1068 Heb. vii. 19.

1069 Heb. vii. 22.

1070 Matt. xxvi. 28.

1071 Gal. iii. 24.

1072 Gal. iv. 1, &c.

1073 Luke xvi. 16.

1074 Col. ii. 3.

1075 Luke x. 24.

1076 Matt. xiii. 16.

1077 1 Peter i. 12.

1078 Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.

1079 2 Cor. iii. 6, &c.

1080 Rom. viii. 15.

1081 Heb. xii. 18, &c.

1082 Gal. iv. 22, &c.

1083 Luke xvi. 16.

1084 Deut. xxxii. 8, 9.

1085 Deut. x. 14.

1086 Acts xiv. 16.

1087 Gal. iv. 4.

1088 Matt. xvii. 11.

1089 Eph. ii. 14.

1090 Col. iii. 11.

1091 Psalm ii. 8.

1092 Psalm lxxii. 8.

1093 Phil. ii. 9, 10.

1094 Matt. xv. 24.

1095 Matt. x. 5, 6.

1096 Col. i. 26.

1097 Eph. iii. 10.

1098 Gal. iv. 1‐3.

1099 1 Tim. ii. 5.

1100 Heb. iv. 15.

1101 Eph. v. 30.

1102 John xx. 17.

1103 Rom. viii. 17.

1104 Col. i. 15.

1105 Isaiah liii. 4, &c.

1106 John i. 9, &c.

1107 John iii. 16.

1108 John v. 25.

1109 John xi. 25.

1110 Matt. xviii. 11.

1111 Matt. ix. 12.

1112 Heb. v. 1.

1113 2 Cor. v. 19.

1114 Rom. viii. 3.

1115 Titus iii. 4.

1116 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.

1117 John x. 17, 18.

1118 John iii. 14.

1119 John xii. 27.

1120 John xvii. 1.

1121 Luke i. 72, 79.

1122 Col. ii. 3.

1123 1 Cor. ii. 2.

1124 Eph. i. 4, &c.

1125 Eph. iii. 18, 19.

1126 1 Tim. i. 15.

1127 2 Tim. i. 9.

1128 Titus iii. 9.

1129 Eph. i. 22.

1130 Psalm lxxxii. 6.

1131 Col. ii. 10.

1132 Heb. iv. 15.

1133 Luke iii. 38.

1134 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47.

1135 Col. i. 15.

1136 Col. i. 16, 18.

1137 Gen. ii. 23.

1138 Eph. v. 30, 32.

1139 Gal. iv. 4.

1140 Gen. xii. 3; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxvi. 4. Acts iii. 25; ii. 30.
Psalm cxxxii. 11. Matt. i. 1.

1141 Rom. i. 3; ix. 5.

1142 Gal. iv. 4.

1143 Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17; iv. 15.

1144 Rom. viii. 3.

1145 Eph. iv. 15, 16.

1146 John iii. 34; i. 16.

1147 John xvii. 19.

1148 Phil. ii. 7, 8.

1149 1 Peter iii. 18.

1150 2 Cor. xiii. 4.

1151 1 Cor. xv. 47.

1152 1 Cor. xv. 13, 14.

1153 Heb. ii. 10, 11, 14.

1154 Rom. viii. 29.

1155 Heb. ii. 16.

1156 Gen. iii. 15.

1157 Gal. iii. 16.

1158 Rom. i. 3.

1159 Rom. ix. 5.

1160 Acts ii. 30.

1161 Psalm cxxxii. 11.

1162 Gal. iv. 4.

1163 Matt. i. 16. εξ ἦς εγεννηθη Ἰησους.

1164 Matt. i. 5. Σαλμων δε εγεννησεν τον βοες εκ της Ῥαχαβ.

1165 Gal. iii. 22.

1166 Rom. v. 12, 15, 18.

1167 1 Cor. xv. 47.

1168 Rom. viii. 3.

1169 John xvii. 19.

1170 John i. 14.

1171 John viii. 58.

1172 Col. i. 15.

1173 John xvii. 5.

1174 John v. 17.

1175 Isaiah xlii. 1.

1176 Luke ii. 52.

1177 John viii. 50. Mark xiii. 32. John xiv. 10; vi. 38. Luke xxiv. 39.

1178 Acts xx. 28.

1179 1 Cor. ii. 8.

1180 1 John i. 1.

1181 1 John iii. 16.

1182 John iii. 13.

1183 John i. 29; v. 21‐23.

1184 John ix. 5; x. 9, 11; xv. 1.

1185 1 Cor. xv. 24.

1186 Phil. ii. 8.

1187 Heb. ii. 7.

1188 Phil. ii. 10.

1189 1 Cor. xv. 28.

1190 1 Cor. viii. 6.

1191 Luke i. 35, 43.

1192 John ii. 19.

1193 Luke i. 35.

1194 Rom. viii. 15. Gal. iv. 5, 6.

1195 Psalm lxxxii. 6.

1196 Col. i. 15‐18.

1197 Rom. i. 1‐4.

1198 Rom. viii. 32.

1199 Luke i. 32.

1200 1 John i. 1.

1201 Micah v. 2.

1202 Eph. iii. 15.

1203 Prov. xxx. 4.

1204 Gen. ii. 7.

1205 Prov. viii. 22, &c.

1206 Col. ii. 19.

1207 John iv. 25.

1208 Isaiah lv. 4.

1209 Isaiah ix. 6.

1210 Heb. i. 1, 2.

1211 Psalm lxxiv. 9.

1212 Dan. ix. 24.

1213 Isaiah lxi. 1, 2.

1214 Matt. xvii. 5.

1215 Joel ii. 28.

1216 1 Cor. i. 30.

1217 Col. ii. 3.

1218 1 Cor. ii. 2.

1219 Psalm lxxxix. 35‐37.

1220 Isaiah iii. 8.

1221 Psalm ii. 1, &c.

1222 Psalm cx. 1.

1223 John xviii. 36.

1224 Luke xvii. 20, 21.

1225 Rom. xiv. 17.

1226 Luke ix. 20.

1227 Isaiah xi. 2.

1228 Psalm xlv. 7.

1229 John iii. 34.

1230 John i. 16.

1231 Eph. iv. 7.

1232 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28.

1233 Eph. i. 20, 22, 23.

1234 Phil. ii. 9‐11.

1235 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

1236 Isaiah xxxiii. 22.

1237 Psalm ii. 9.

1238 Psalm cx. 6.

1239 Psalm cx. 4.

1240 Rev. i. 6.

1241 Eph. v. 2.

1242 John xvii. 19.

1243 Dan. ix. 24.

1244 Acts iv. 12.

1245 Matt. i. 21.

1246 Rom. v. 10.

1247 Gal. iii. 10‐13.

1248 Col. i. 21, 22.

1249 1 John iv. 19.

1250 Eph. i. 4, 5.

1251 John iii. 16.

1252 Rom. v. 10.

1253 Rom. v. 8.

1254 Rom. v. 19.

1255 Gal. iv. 4, 5.

1256 Matt. iii. 15.

1257 Matt. xx. 28.

1258 1 Cor. xv. 3.

1259 John i. 29.

1260 Rom. iii. 24, 25.

1261 Rom. v. 9, 10.

1262 2 Cor. v. 21.

1263 Phil. ii. 7, 8.

1264 John x. 15, 18.

1265 Isaiah liii. 7.

1266 John xviii. 4.

1267 Matt. xxvii. 12, 14.

1268 Psalm xl. 7, 8.

1269 Isaiah liii. 5.

1270 Isaiah liii. 12. Mark xv. 28.

1271 Matt. xxvii. 18, 23, 24. John xviii. 38.

1272 Psalm lxix. 4.

1273 Isaiah liii. 10.

1274 2 Cor. v. 21.

1275 Rom. viii. 3.

1276 Isaiah liii. 6.

1277 Gal. iii. 13, 14.

1278 1 Peter ii. 24.

1279 Col. ii. 14, 15.

1280 Heb. ix. 14.

1281 1 Cor. i. 30.

1282 1 Tim. ii. 6.

1283 Rom. iii. 25.

1284 Heb. ii. 9.

1285 Heb. ii. 14, 15.

1286 Col. iii. 5.

1287 Rom. vi. 4, 5.

1288 Gal. vi. 14.

1289 Col. iii. 3.

1290 Psalm cvii. 16.

1291 Zech. ix. 11.

1292 1 Peter iii. 19.

1293 Isaiah liii. 5.

1294 Acts ii. 24.

1295 Acts ii. 24.

1296 Heb. v. 7.

1297 Matt. xxvii. 46.

1298 Isaiah xlii. 1.

1299 Isaiah liii. 4.

1300 Heb. ii. 15.

1301 Heb. iv. 15.

1302 Matt. xxvi. 39.

1303 Acts ii. 24.

1304 Matt. xxvii. 46.

1305 John xii. 27.

1306 John xii. 27, 28.

1307 1 Peter i. 3.

1308 Rom. iv. 25.

1309 Rom. i. 4.

1310 2 Cor. xiii. 4.

1311 Phil. iii. 10.

1312 1 Peter i. 21.

1313 1 Peter i. 5.

1314 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17.

1315 Rom. viii. 34.

1316 Rom. vi. 4, 5.

1317 Col. iii. 5.

1318 Col. iii. 1, 2.

1319 1 Cor. xv.

1320 Eph. iv. 10.

1321 John vii. 37, 39.

1322 John xvi. 7.

1323 Matt. xxviii. 20.

1324 Eph. i. 20‐22.

1325 Acts vii. 55, 56.

1326 Eph. ii. 6.

1327 Heb. ix. 24.

1328 Rom. viii. 34.

1329 Heb. iv. 16.

1330 Eph. iv. 8.

1331 Acts i. 11.

1332 Matt. xxiv. 30; xxv. 31. 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.

1333 Heb. ix. 27.

1334 1 Cor. xv. 51.

1335 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.

1336 Acts x. 42.

1337 2 Tim. iv. 1.

1338 Rom. viii. 34.

1339 John v. 22.

1340 Acts iii. 15.

1341 John iii. 16.

1342 1 John iv. 10.

1343 1 John ii. 2.

1344 Col. i. 19, 20.

1345 2 Cor. v. 19.

1346 Eph. i. 6.

1347 Eph. ii. 16.

1348 2 Cor. v. 21.

1349 Rom. v. 10, 11.

1350 Rom. v. 19.

1351 Rom. v. 16.

1352 1 John i. 7.

1353 Matt. xxvi. 28.

1354 John i. 29.

1355 Heb. ix. 22, 26, 28.

1356 Heb. ix. 12.

1357 Heb. ix. 13, 14.

1358 Heb. ix. 15.

1359 Gal. iii. 13.

1360 Isaiah liii. 5.

1361 Isaiah liii. 8.

1362 1 Peter ii. 24.

1363 Rom. iii. 24, 25.

1364 1 Peter i. 18, 19.

1365 1 Cor. vi. 20.

1366 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6.

1367 Col. i. 14.

1368 Col. ii. 14.

1369 Gal. ii. 21.

1370 Lev. xviii. 5.

1371 Acts xiii. 39.

1372 Gal. iv. 4, 5.

1373 Rom. iv. 5.

1374 John vi. 55.

1375 Eph. v. 2.

1376 Rom. iv. 25.

1377 Isaiah xxxvii. 35.

1378 1 John ii. 12.

1379 John vi. 57.

1380 Phil. i. 29.

1381 Rom. viii. 32.

1382 John iii. 16.

1383 Isaiah ix. 6.

1384 Zech. ix. 9.

1385 Rom. v. 8, 10.

1386 John xvii. 19.

1387 Phil. ii. 9.

1388 Luke xxiv. 26.

1389 Ephes. iv. 15.

1390 Rom. viii. 29.

1391 Rom. xi. 17.

1392 Gal. iii. 27.

1393 1 John v. 7, 8.

1394 1 Pet. i. 2.

1395 1 Cor. vi. 11.

1396 Rom. i. 4.

1397 Joel ii. 28.

1398 Rom. viii. 9.

1399 Rom. viii. 11.

1400 John vii. 37.

1401 Ephes. iv. 7.

1402 1 Cor. xv. 45.

1403 2 Cor. xiii. 14.

1404 Rom. v. 5.

1405 Rom. viii. 15.

1406 2 Cor. i. 22. Eph. i. 13, 14.

1407 Rom. viii. 10.

1408 Isaiah lv. 1.

1409 Isaiah xliv. 3.

1410 John vii. 37; iv. 14.

1411 Ezek. xxxvi. 25.

1412 1 John ii. 20.

1413 Luke iii. 16.

1414 Eph. iv. 15. Rom. viii. 29. Gal. iii. 27.

1415 Eph. v. 30.

1416 John i. 12, 13.

1417 Matt. xvi. 17.

1418 Eph. i. 13.

1419 2 Thess. ii. 13.

1420 1 John iii. 24.

1421 1 John iv. 13.

1422 John xiv. 17.

1423 2 Cor. iii. 6.

1424 John vi. 44.

1425 Luke iii. 16.

1426 1 Tim. vi. 16.

1427 John viii. 12.

1428 John xiv. 6.

1429 Luke x. 22.

1430 1 Cor. ii. 2.

1431 Acts xxvi. 17, 18.

1432 2 Cor. iv. 6.

1433 John xvii. 3.

1434 1 Pet. i. 21.

1435 Rom. x. 10.

1436 John xvii. 3.

1437 Phil. iii. 15.

1438 John iv. 50‐53.

1439 John iv. 42.

1440 2 Tim. iii. 7.

1441 Eph. iv. 20, 21.

1442 1 Tim. iv. 6.

1443 Gal. iii. 23‐25.

1444 Isaiah lv. 3.

1445 John xx. 31.

1446 Psalm xcv. 7.

1447 Isaiah liv. 13.

1448 Rom. i. 5.

1449 Phil. ii. 17.

1450 Gen. ii. 17.

1451 Gen. iv. 10.

1452 Psalm xl. 10, 11.

1453 Psalm xxxvi. 5.

1454 Psalm xxv. 10.

1455 Psalm cxvii. 2.

1456 Psalm cxxxviii. 2.

1457 Rom. x. 10.

1458 Rom. i. 5.

1459 John iii. 33.

1460 1 Cor. xiii. 2.

1461 1 Cor. xii. 10‐31.

1462 Acts viii. 13, 18, 19.

1463 James ii. 19.

1464 Heb. vi. 4.

1465 Gal. iv. 6.

1466 Rom. v. 5.

1467 John ii. 24, 25.

1468 John viii. 31, 32.

1469 Titus i. 1.

1470 Matt. xv. 13.

1471 James ii. 14.

1472 1 Tim. i. 5.

1473 1 Tim. i. 19.

1474 1 Tim. iii. 9.

1475 1 Tim. iv. 1.

1476 1 Tim. iv. 6.

1477 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21.

1478 2 Tim. iii. 8.

1479 Titus i. 13.

1480 Col. ii. 3.

1481 Matt. ix. 2. Mark ii. 5.

1482 Matt. viii. 10.

1483 Eph. iii. 18.

1484 Col. i. 26.

1485 Col. ii. 2.

1486 1 John iii. 2.

1487 Psalm xii. 6.

1488 Psalm xviii. 30.

1489 Prov. xxx. 5.

1490 Eph. iii. 12.

1491 Rom. v. 1.

1492 Heb. iii. 14.

1493 Rom. viii. 38.

1494 Eph. i. 18.

1495 Psalm xlii. 5.

1496 Psalm xxxi. 22.

1497 Psalm lxxvii. 7, 9, 10.

1498 Psalm cxvi. 7.

1499 Psalm xxvii. 14.

1500 Isaiah vii. 4.

1501 Isaiah vii. 2.

1502 Psalm cxix. 43.

1503 1 Cor. xiii. 9, 12.

1504 2 Cor. iii. 18.

1505 Matt. viii. 25.

1506 Job xiii. 15.

1507 Psalm xxiii. 4.

1508 1 John v. 4.

1509 1 Cor. x. 11.

1510 1 Cor. x. 12.

1511 Rom. xi. 10.

1512 Phil. ii. 11.

1513 Psalm v. 7.

1514 Prov. xxviii. 14.

1515 Hosea iii. 5.

1516 Rom. viii. 10.

1517 Isaiah lxiv. 6.

1518 Matt. vi. 23.

1519 Rom. ix. 11.

1520 Psalm cxi. 10.

1521 Prov. i. 7; ix. 10. Job xxviii. 28.

1522 Mal. i. 6.

1523 1 John iv. 18.

1524 Eph. v. 6. Col. iii. 6.

1525 Psalm lxxx. 3.

1526 Eph. ii. 14, 15.

1527 Psalm lxiii. 3.

1528 Rom. viii. 39.

1529 Psalm xxiii. 4.

1530 Psalm xxxiii. 12.

1531 Rom. x. 8.

1532 Rom. i. 5, 16, 17.

1533 2 Cor. v. 18.

1534 Psalm cxlv. 8, 9.

1535 Heb. xi. 7.

1536 Rom. x. 8.

1537 Psalm ix. 10.

1538 Psalm cxix. 41.

1539 Psalm cxix. 146, 147.

1540 Rom. iv. 21.

1541 2 Tim. i. 12.

1542 Psalm cxliii. 5.

1543 Psalm lxxvii. 11.

1544 1 Cor. ii. 2.

1545 2 Cor. i. 20.

1546 Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5.

1547 Eph. i. 6.

1548 Eph. ii. 14.

1549 Rom. viii. 3.

1550 Rom. xv. 8.

1551 2 Kings v. 17‐19.

1552 Acts x. 31.

1553 Acts viii. 17, 31.

1554 2 Tim. i. 14.

1555 Gal. iii. 2.

1556 1 Cor. ii. 11.

1557 2 Cor. iii. 14.

1558 Matt. xi. 25.

1559 Matt. xvi. 17.

1560 1 Cor. ii. 14.

1561 Rom. xi. 34.

1562 1 Cor. ii. 10.

1563 1 Cor. ii. 16.

1564 Luke xxiv. 45.

1565 John xvi. 13.

1566 2 Cor. iv. 13.

1567 2 Thess. i. 11.

1568 1 Cor. ii. 5.

1569 John vi. 44.

1570 John vi. 65.

1571 Eph. i. 13.

1572 2 Cor. i. 21.

1573 1 Cor. v. 5.

1574 Psalm xlvi. 1, 2.

1575 Psalm iii. 5.

1576 Isaiah xxx. 16.

1577 Psalm xxxvii. 7.

1578 Heb. x. 36.

1579 Eccl. ix. 1.

1580 Eccl. ix. 2.

1581 Eccl. iii. 19.

1582 1 Cor. ii. 12.

1583 Rom. viii. 14.

1584 Rom. viii. 16.

1585 Rom. viii. 9.

1586 Rom. viii. 11.

1587 2 Cor. xiii. 5.

1588 1 John iii. 24.

1589 Isaiah xliv. 3.

1590 John xiv. 7.

1591 Rom. viii. 38.

1592 1 Cor. x. 12.

1593 Heb. xi. 1.

1594 Rom. viii. 24.

1595 Lombard.

1596 Bernard. Serm. I. in Annunciat.

1597 Rom. viii. 24.

1598 Heb. ii. 3.

1599 Isaiah viii. 17.

1600 2 Pet. iii. 4.

1601 Psalm xc. 4. 2 Pet. iii. 8.

1602 1 Pet. i. 5.

1603 1 Pet. i. 21.

1604 Phil. i. 20.

1605 Heb. x. 36.

1606 Gal. v. 5.

1607 Matt. ix. 29.

1608 Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17.

1609 Acts xx. 21.

1610 Matt. iii. 2, 3.

1611 Isaiah xl. 1, 3.

1612 Psalm cxxx. 4.

1613 Hos. vi. 1.

1614 Gen. iv. 13. 1 Sam. xv. 30. Matt. xxvii. 3, 4.

1615 2 Kings xx. 2. Isaiah xxxviii. 2.

1616 Jonah iii. 5.

1617 2 Sam. xxiv. 10.

1618 2 Sam. xii. 13‐16.

1619 Acts ii. 37.

1620 Acts xx. 21.

1621 Matt. iii. 2.

1622 1 Sam. vii. 3.

1623 Ezekiel xviii. 31.

1624 Jer. iv. 1, 3, 4.

1625 Isaiah lviii. 6.

1626 Jer. iv. 4.

1627 Acts xvii. 30, 31.

1628 2 Cor. vii. 10.

1629 Psalm xxxiv. 14.

1630 Isaiah i. 16, 17.

1631 Rom. viii. 7.

1632 Rom. vi. 5, 6.

1633 2 Cor. iii. 18.

1634 Eph. iv. 23, 24.

1635 Col. iii. 10.

1636 Eph. v. 26.

1637 Rom. vi. 6.

1638 Rom. vii.

1639 Rom. vi. 12.

1640 James i. 15.

1641 2 Cor. xii. 7, 9.

1642 Rom. vii.

1643 2 Cor. vii. 11.

1644 Heb. xii. 3.

1645 Joel ii. 13.

1646 James iv. 8.

1647 2 Cor. vii. 11.

1648 Joel ii. 12.

1649 Matt. ix. 15.

1650 Matt. xi. 21.

1651 1 Cor. xi. 31.

1652 Psalm ii. 5.

1653 Psalm xxv. 7.

1654 2 Cor. xii. 21.

1655 Matt. xi. 10.

1656 Matt. iii. 2.

1657 Luke iii. 3. Mark i. 4.

1658 Mark i. 15.

1659 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.

1660 Acts v. 31.

1661 1 Cor. i. 30.

1662 Isaiah lxi. 1. Matt. xi 5. Luke iv. 18.

1663 Matt. ix. 13.

1664 Acts iii. 26.

1665 Isaiah lvi. 1.

1666 Isaiah lix. 20.

1667 Isaiah lv. 6, 7.

1668 Acts iii. 19.

1669 Acts xi. 18.

1670 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26.

1671 Eph. ii. 10.

1672 Isaiah lix. 20.

1673 Isaiah lxiii. 17.

1674 Heb. vi. 4.

1675 Heb. x. 29.

1676 Heb. vi. 4‐6.

1677 Heb. x. 26, 27.

1678 Matt. xii. 31, 32. Mark iii. 28, 29. Luke xii. 10.

1679 Matt. xii. 32.

1680 του Πνευματος βλασφημια, Matt. xii. 31.

1681 Acts vi. 10.

1682 Matt. ix. 34; xii. 24.

1683 1 Tim. i. 13.

1684 1 John ii. 19.

1685 Heb. vi. 4‐6.

1686 Heb. x. 26.

1687 Jer. xi. 11.

1688 Ezek. xviii. 21.

1689 1 Kings xxi. 27, &c.

1690 Gen. xxvii. 38, 39.

1691 Psalm lxxviii. 36, 37.

1692 2 Cor. vii. 10.

1693 Matt. xi. 28. Luke iv. 18. Isaiah lxi. 1, &c.

1694 Gen. iii. 9, 12.

1695 Heb. vii. 12.

1696 Matt. viii. 4. Luke v. 14; xvii. 14. Lev. xiv. 2, &c.

1697 Matt. xxiv. 14.

1698 Matt. x. 18.

1699 John xi. 44.

1700 Matt. iii. 6.

1701 James v. 16.

1702 Gal. iii. 22. Rom. iii. 9, 19.

1703 Psalm xlii. 4.

1704 Psalm xxxii. 5.

1705 Psalm li. 1.

1706 Dan. ix. 5.

1707 1 John i. 9.

1708 2 Sam. xii. 13.

1709 Lev. xvi. 21.

1710 James v. 16.

1711 Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18. John xx. 23.

1712 Matt. v. 23, 24.

1713 2 Cor. ii. 6.

1714 Matt. xviii. 18. John xx. 23.

1715 Matt. ix. 2.

1716 Matt. xviii. 18.

1717 Isaiah xliii. 11, 25.

1718 Psalm xix. 12.

1719 Psalm lxxxviii. 15.

1720 Psalm cxliii. 3, 4.

1721 Psalm cxvi. 3.

1722 Psalm lxix. 2, 14.

1723 1 John iii. 20.

1724 Luke xviii. 13.

1725 Psalm xix. 12.

1726 1 Peter i. 23.

1727 Ezek. xviii. 21, 22.

1728 Prov. xxx. 20.

1729 Matt. xviii. 18.

1730 1 Cor. vi. 9‐11.

1731 Matt. ix. 29.

1732 Isaiah xliii. 25.

1733 Acts x. 43.

1734 2 Cor. v. 19, 21.

1735 1 Peter ii. 24.

1736 1 John ii. 1, 2, 12.

1737 John i. 29.

1738 Isaiah liii. 5, 6.

1739 1 Peter ii. 24.

1740 Rom. viii. 3.

1741 2 Cor. v. 21, Gal. iii. 13.

1742 2 Cor. v. 20.

1743 Col. i. 20.

1744 Rom. vi. 23, Ezek. xviii. 20.

1745 Rom. viii. 1.

1746 Jer. xxxi. 31‐34.

1747 Ezek. xviii. 24‐28.

1748 Isaiah xxxviii. 17; xliv. 22. Micah vii. 19. Psalm xxxii. 1, 2.

1749 Isaiah i. 18.

1750 Jeremiah l. 20.

1751 Job xiv. 17. Hos. xiii. 12. Jeremiah xvii. 1.

1752 1 Peter ii. 24.

1753 Isaiah liii. 6.

1754 Rom. iii. 24, &c.

1755 1 Tim. ii. 6.

1756 Hosea xiv. 2.

1757 2 Sam. xii. 13, 14.

1758 Dan. iv. 27.

1759 Prov. xvi. 6.

1760 Prov. x. 12. 1 Peter iv. 8.

1761 Luke vii. 47.

1762 Job v. 17. Prov. iii. 11. Heb. xii. 5‐11. Psalm cxviii. 18; cxix.
71.

1763 Jer. x. 24, 25.

1764 Ps. vi. 1; xxxviii. 1.

1765 Isaiah xii. 1.

1766 Hab. iii. 2.

1767 Micah vii. 9.

1768 Is. xliii. 28; xlvii. 6.

1769 Ps. lxxxix. 30‐33.

1770 2 Sam. vii. 14.

1771 Is. xlviii. 10.

1772 Isaiah i. 5, 6.

1773 1 Sam. xv. 23.

1774 2 Sam. xii. 18.

1775 1 Cor. xi. 32.

1776 Isaiah xl. 2.

1777 1 Peter iv. 17. Jer. xxv. 29, marg. read.

1778 Psalm lxxxviii. 16.

1779 Psalm xc. 7‐9.

1780 Psalm xciv. 12, 13.

1781 Jer. v. 3.

1782 Hosea vii. 8.

1783 Luke xviii. 14.

1784 Luke xxii. 62.

1785 Matt. ix. 2.

1786 Dan. iv. 27.

1787 Prov. x. 12.

1788 1 Peter iv. 8.

1789 Prov. xvi. 6.

1790 Heb. xiii. 16.

1791 Luke xi. 39‐41.

1792 In Harm. Evang.

1793 Luke vii. 39.

1794 Matt. vi. 12.

1795 Acts x. 43.

1796 1 John i. 7.

1797 2 Cor. v. 21.

1798 1 Cor. i. 13.

1799 Acts xx. 28.

1800 Heb. x. 14.

1801 Rev. vii. 14.

1802 Col. i. 24.

1803 Col. i. 24.

1804 2 Tim. ii. 10.

1805 2 Cor. i. 6.

1806 Col. i. 25.

1807 Rom. v. 17‐20.

1808 Acts xv. 11.

1809 2 Cor. v. 18, &c.

1810 1 Cor. i. 9.

1811 Deut. xviii. 10‐12.

1812 Matt. xii. 32.

1813 Matt. v. 25.

1814 Phil. ii. 10.

1815 Rom. xiv. 10, 11.

1816 Rev. v. 13.

1817 Luke xxiv. 44.

1818 1 Cor. iii. 12.

1819 Rom. xiv. 23.

1820 Rev. xiv. 13.

1821 Lev. xix. 2. 1 Peter i. 16.

1822 Isaiah xxxv. 10.

1823 Psalm xv. 1, 2; xxiv. 3, 4.

1824 Rom. vi. 4, &c.; viii. 29.

1825 Eph. iv. 20, &c.

1826 Rom. xii. 1.

1827 Eph. iv. 23.

1828 Gal. ii. 20.

1829 Titus ii. 11‐14.

1830 Rom. xii. 10. Phil. ii. 4.

1831 1 Cor. iv. 7.

1832 1 Cor. xiii. 4‐8.

1833 Psalm xvi. 2, 3.

1834 Heb. xiii. 16.

1835 Gal. vi. 10.

1836 Isaiah lviii. 7.

1837 Matt. v. 44.

1838 Luke xvii. 3, 4.

1839 Psalm cxxxi. 1, 2.

1840 Psalm lxxix. 13.

1841 Matt. xvi. 24.

1842 Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5.

1843 Heb. v. 8.

1844 Rom. viii. 29.

1845 Acts xiv. 22.

1846 Phil. iii. 10.

1847 Psalm xxx. 6, 7.

1848 Rom. v. 3, 4.

1849 Gen. xxii. 1, 12.

1850 1 Peter i. 7.

1851 Deut. xxxii. 15.

1852 1 Cor. xi. 32.

1853 Prov. iii. 11, 12.

1854 Heb. xii. 8.

1855 Matt. v. 10.

1856 Acts v. 41.

1857 1 Peter iv. 14.

1858 1 Tim. iv. 10.

1859 2 Cor. vi. 8.

1860 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9.

1861 John xvi. 20.

1862 Matt. v. 4.

1863 Luke xxii. 44.

1864 John xxi. 18.

1865 2 Cor. v. 6.

1866 Rom. vii. 24.

1867 Phil. i. 20.

1868 Rom. xiv. 7, 8.

1869 2 Cor. v. 4.

1870 Titus ii. 13.

1871 Luke xxi. 28.

1872 Rom. viii. 36.

1873 1 Cor. xv. 19.

1874 Isaiah xxv. 8. Rev. vii. 17.

1875 2 Thess. i. 6, 7.

1876 Psalm lxxiii. 2, &c.

1877 1 Cor. vii. 30, 31.

1878 Psalm civ. 15.

1879 Rom. xiii. 14.

1880 1 Cor. vii. 29, 30, 31.

1881 Phil. iv. 12.

1882 Luke xvi. 2.

1883 Luke vii. 29, 35.

1884 Luke xvi. 15.

1885 1 Kings i. 21.

1886 Gal. iii. 8.

1887 Rom. iii. 26; iv. 5.

1888 Rom. viii. 33, 34.

1889 Acts xiii. 38, 39.

1890 Luke xviii. 14.

1891 Eph. i. 5, 6.

1892 Rom. iii. 24.

1893 Rom. iv. 6‐8.

1894 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.

1895 2 Cor. v. 21.

1896 Rom. v. 19.

1897 Col. ii. 9.

1898 1 Cor. i. 30.

1899 Rom. iv. 5.

1900 Jer. xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 16.

1901 Acts xx. 28.

1902 Isaiah liii. 11.

1903 Rom. v. 19.

1904 2 Cor. v. 21.

1905 John xii. 43.

1906 2 Peter i. 4.

1907 1 John iii. 2.

1908 2 Cor. v. 19, 21.

1909 Rom. iv. 6‐8.

1910 Gal. iii. 18.

1911 Rom. vii. 24.

1912 Rom. viii. 33, 38, 39.

1913 Psalm li. 4.

1914 Exod. xxxiii. 19.

1915 1 Cor. i. 30.

1916 Col. ii. 3.

1917 Mal. iv. 2.

1918 John viii. 12.

1919 Gal. iii. 13; iv. 4.

1920 Heb. ii. 14.

1921 Phil. ii. 13.

1922 John xvii. 19.

1923 Isaiah lix. 17.

1924 Rom. iii. 24, 25.

1925 Rom. v. 19.

1926 Phil. iii. 8, 9.

1927 Rom. x. 3.

1928 Rom. iii. 27.

1929 Rom. iv. 2.

1930 Rom. iv. 4.

1931 Rom. x. 5, &c.

1932 Gal. iii. 11.

1933 Rom. ii. 13.

1934 Heb. xi. 6.

1935 Rom. x. 5, 6, 9.

1936 Gal. iii. 18.

1937 Rom. iii. 10, &c.

1938 Gal. iii. 11, 12.

1939 Rom. iv. 2, 3.

1940 Rom. iv. 16.

1941 Rom. iii. 21.

1942 Rom. iv. 2.

1943 Rom. i. 17.

1944 Rom. iii. 21, 24, 28.

1945 Gal. iii. 10, 12.

1946 Rom. iii. 20; iv. 15.

1947 Gal. iii. 21, 22.

1948 Gal. iii. 17.

1949 Rom. iv. 6.

1950 Gal. v. 6.

1951 Rom. iv. 4, 5.

1952 Sect. II.

1953 Isaiah lix. 1, 2.

1954 Rom. v. 8‐10.

1955 2 Cor. v. 19.

1956 2 Cor. v. 21.

1957 Rom. iv. 6‐8.

1958 Luke i. 77.

1959 Acts xiii. 38, 39.

1960 2 Cor. v. 21.

1961 Rom. viii. 3, 4.

1962 Rom. v. 19.

1963 See particularly the Book of Job.

1964 Isaiah xxxiii. 14, 15.

1965 Psalm cxxx. 3.

1966 Job iv. 17‐20.

1967 Job xv. 15, 16.

1968 Deut. xxvii. 26.

1969 Luke xvi. 15.

1970 Psalm cxliii. 2.

1971 Job ix. 2, 3.

1972 Acts ix. 15.

1973 1 Cor. iv. 4.

1974 Ezek. xxxvi. 22.

1975 1 Cor. iv. 5.

1976 Prov. xxi. 2.

1977 Prov. xvi. 2.

1978 Job xv. 16; xxv. 4, 6.

1979 Job xiv. 4.

1980 Job ix. 20.

1981 Isaiah liii. 6.

1982 1 Peter v. 5.

1983 Psalm xviii. 27.

1984 Zeph. iii. 11, 12.

1985 Isaiah lxvi. 2.

1986 Isaiah lvii. 15.

1987 Matt. xxiii. 12. Luke xiv. 11; xviii. 14.

1988 Luke xviii. 13.

1989 Isaiah lxi. 1‐3.

1990 Matt. xi. 28.

1991 Matt. ix. 13.

1992 Rom. iii. 26.

1993 Rom. iii. 19.

1994 Ezek. xx. 43, 44.

1995 Jer. ix. 23, 24.

1996 1 Cor. i. 29‐31.

1997 Rom. iii. 19.

1998 Isaiah xlv. 23‐25.

1999 Rom. iii. 26.

2000 Ephes. i. 6.

2001 Ephes. ii. 8.

2002 1 Peter ii. 9.

2003 Prov. xx. 9.

2004 Rom. iv. 14.

2005 Rom. iv. 16.

2006 Psalm cxix. 76, 77.

2007 Eccles. ix. 1.

2008 1 Cor. ii. 16.

2009 Zech. iii. 9, 10.

2010 Isaiah ix. 6. Ephes. ii. 14.

2011 Rom. v. 1.

2012 Rom. v. 5.

2013 Rom. viii. 35, &c.

2014 Psalm xxiii. 4.

2015 Gal. iv. 6.

2016 Ephes. iii. 12.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)" ***

Home