{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45001/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45001","id":"gutenberg_45001","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45001","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Reformed Church -- Doctrines -- Early works to 1800","Theology, Doctrinal -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Institutes of the Christian Religion\n\n                                    by\n\n                               John Calvin\n\n Translated from the original Latin, and collated with the author\u2019s last\n                            edition in French,\n\n                              by John Allen\n\n              Sixth American Edition, Revised and Corrected.\n\n                             In Two Volumes.\n\n                                 Vol. I.\n\n                              Philadelphia:\n\n                    Presbyterian Board of Publication\n\n                                   1813\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nAdvertisement.\nThe Translator\u2019s Preface.\nThe Author\u2019s Preface to An Edition Published In The Year 1559, With His\nLast Corrections And Additions.\nDedication.\nGeneral Syllabus.\nBook I. On The Knowledge Of God The Creator.\n   Argument.\n   Chapter I. The Connection Between The Knowledge Of God And The\n   Knowledge Of Ourselves.\n   Chapter II. The Nature And Tendency Of The Knowledge Of God.\n   Chapter III. The Human Mind Naturally Endued With The Knowledge Of God.\n   Chapter IV. This Knowledge Extinguished Or Corrupted, Partly By\n   Ignorance, Partly By Wickedness.\n   Chapter V. The Knowledge Of God Conspicuous In The Formation And\n   Continual Government Of The World.\n   Chapter VI. The Guidance And Teaching Of The Scripture Necessary To\n   Lead To The Knowledge Of God The Creator.\n   Chapter VII. The Testimony Of The Spirit Necessary To Confirm The\n   Scripture, In Order To The Complete Establishment Of Its Authority. The\n   Suspension Of Its Authority On The Judgment Of The Church, An Impious\n   Fiction.\n   Chapter VIII. Rational Proofs To Establish The Belief Of The Scripture.\n   Chapter IX. The Fanaticism Which Discards The Scripture, Under The\n   Pretence Of Resorting To Immediate Revelations, Subversive Of Every\n   Principle Of Piety.\n   Chapter X. All Idolatrous Worship Discountenanced In The Scripture, By\n   Its Exclusive Opposition Of The True God To All The Fictitious Deities\n   Of The Heathen.\n   Chapter XI. Unlawfulness Of Ascribing To God A Visible Form. All\n   Idolatry A Defection From The True God.\n   Chapter XII. God Contradistinguished From Idols, That He May Be Solely\n   And Supremely Worshipped.\n   Chapter XIII. One Divine Essence, Containing Three Persons; Taught In\n   The Scriptures From The Beginning.\n   Chapter XIV. The True God Clearly Distinguished In The Scripture From\n   All Fictitious Ones By The Creation Of The World.\n   Chapter XV. The State Of Man At His Creation, The Faculties Of The\n   Soul, The Divine Image, Free Will, And The Original Purity Of His\n   Nature.\n   Chapter XVI. God\u2019s Preservation And Support Of The World By His Power,\n   And His Government Of Every Part Of It By His Providence.\n   Chapter XVII. The Proper Application Of This Doctrine To Render It\n   Useful To Us.\n   Chapter XVIII. God Uses The Agency Of The Impious, And Inclines Their\n   Minds To Execute His Judgments, Yet Without The Least Stain Of His\n   Perfect Purity.\nBook II. On The Knowledge Of God The Redeemer In Christ, Which Was\nRevealed First To The Fathers Under The Law, And Since To Us In The\nGospel.\n   Argument.\n   Chapter I. The Fall And Defection Of Adam The Cause Of The Curse\n   Inflicted On All Mankind, And Of Their Degeneracy From Their Primitive\n   Condition. The Doctrine Of Original Sin.\n   Chapter II. Man, In His Present State, Despoiled Of Freedom Of Will,\n   And Subjected To A Miserable Slavery.\n   Chapter III. Every Thing That Proceeds From The Corrupt Nature Of Man\n   Worthy Of Condemnation.\n   Chapter IV. The Operation Of God In The Hearts Of Men.\n   Chapter V. A Refutation Of The Objections Commonly Urged In Support Of\n   Free Will.\n   Chapter VI. Redemption For Lost Man To Be Sought In Christ.\n   Chapter VII. The Law Given, Not To Confine The Ancient People To\n   Itself, But To Encourage Their Hope Of Salvation In Christ, Till The\n   Time Of His Coming.\n   Chapter VIII. An Exposition Of The Moral Law\n      The First Commandment.\n      The Second Commandment.\n      The Third Commandment.\n      The Fourth Commandment.\n      The Fifth Commandment.\n      The Sixth Commandment.\n      The Seventh Commandment.\n      The Eighth Commandment.\n      The Ninth Commandment.\n      The Tenth Commandment.\n   Chapter IX. Christ, Though Known To The Jews Under The Law, Yet Clearly\n   Revealed Only In The Gospel.\n   Chapter X. The Similarity Of The Old And New Testaments.\n   Chapter XI. The Difference Of The Two Testaments.\n   Chapter XII. The Necessity Of Christ Becoming Man In Order To Fulfil\n   The Office Of Mediator.\n   Chapter XIII. Christ\u2019s Assumption Of Real Humanity.\n   Chapter XIV. The Union Of The Two Natures Constituting The Person Of\n   The Mediator.\n   Chapter XV. The Consideration Of Christ\u2019s Three Offices, Prophetical,\n   Regal, And Sacerdotal, Necessary To Our Knowing The End Of His Mission\n   From The Father, And The Benefits Which He Confers On Us.\n   Chapter XVI. Christ\u2019s Execution Of The Office Of A Redeemer To Procure\n   Our Salvation. His Death, Resurrection, And Ascension To Heaven.\n   Chapter XVII. Christ Truly And Properly Said To Have Merited The Grace\n   Of God And Salvation For Us.\nBook III. On The Manner Of Receiving The Grace Of Christ, The Benefits\nWhich We Derive From It, And The Effects Which Follow It.\n   Argument.\n   Chapter I. What Is Declared Concerning Christ Rendered Profitable To Us\n   By The Secret Operation Of The Spirit.\n   Chapter II. Faith Defined, And Its Properties Described.\n   Chapter III. On Repentance.\n   Chapter IV. The Sophistry And Jargon Of The Schools Concerning\n   Repentance, Very Remote From The Purity Of The Gospel. On Confession\n   And Satisfaction.\n   Chapter V. Indulgences And Purgatory. The Supplements To Their Doctrine\n   Of Satisfactions.\n   Chapter VI. The Life Of A Christian. Scriptural Arguments And\n   Exhortations To It.\n   Chapter VII. Summary Of The Christian Life. Self\u2010Denial.\n   Chapter VIII. Bearing The Cross, Which Is A Branch Of Self\u2010Denial.\n   Chapter IX. Meditation On The Future Life.\n   Chapter X. The Right Use Of The Present Life And Its Supports.\n   Chapter XI. Justification By Faith. The Name And Thing Defined.\n   Chapter XII. A Consideration Of The Divine Tribunal, Necessary To A\n   Serious Conviction Of Gratuitous Justification.\n   Chapter XIII. Two Things Necessary To Be Observed In Gratuitous\n   Justification.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               [Cover Art]\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter\nat Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nThe Presbyterian Board of Publication, in introducing to the public a new\nedition of the inimitable \u201cInstitutes of the Christian Religion,\u201d do not\nwish to be regarded as adopting all the sentiments and forms of expression\nof the venerated writer; although they agree with him in his general\nviews, and admire the skill and learning with which he has pointed out the\nrelative positions and bearings of the great doctrines of revelation.\nCalvin was better qualified than any of his contemporaries, to present\nrevealed truth in a connected and systematic form. His great natural\nabilities, his profound erudition, his well balanced and discriminating\njudgment, and his habits of diligent investigation, eminently fitted him\nto prepare such a work as the \u201cInstitutes,\u201d in which the doctrines of the\ngospel are so clearly developed and harmonized, that the system has been\nclosely associated with his name, from the period of its publication until\nthe present time.\n\nThe honour of Calvin consisted, not in suggesting ingenious theories and\nspeculations, but in his general accuracy in interpreting the Holy\nScriptures, and in detecting and pointing out the connection of Scripture\ndoctrines, which, instead of being insulated, were shown to occupy their\nrespective places in forming a complete and perfect system of Divine\ntruth. The doctrines embraced in the formularies of the Presbyterian\nChurch are termed Calvinistic, from their general accordance with Calvin\u2019s\ninterpretation of scriptural truth; but the admission of this term, as\nexplanatory of their general character, is not understood as by any means\nimplying an entire coincidence in the views of Calvin, or a submission to\nhis authority as an umpire in theological controversies. Although a\nlearned and pious, he was a fallible man; and his opinions, although\ndeserving of profound respect, are not to be blindly followed.\n\nWhile admitting that the \u201cInstitutes,\u201d considering the times and\ncircumstances in which they were written, form an invaluable body of\ndivinity, still it must be acknowledged, that some of the doctrines\ntherein maintained have been more luminously set forth in modern times. We\nwould especially mention as an instance the doctrine of justification\nthrough the imputed righteousness of Christ. Some of the expressions of\nCalvin on the subject of reprobation may be regarded as too unqualified,\nand we can no further endorse them than as they are incorporated in the\nPresbyterian Confession of Faith. The most decidedly objectionable feature\nin the \u201cChristian Institutes,\u201d is to be found in the explanation of the\nFourth Commandment, where the author asserts the abrogation of the\nSabbath. In Calvin\u2019s view, this ordinance was a mere type of better\nblessings, and, with the types and ceremonies of the old dispensation, was\ndone away by the introduction of a new and better dispensation. In this\nopinion there can be no doubt that he greatly erred; and so universal is\nthe conviction of the Church on the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as\na moral institution, that no danger is to be apprehended from a contrary\nview, even under the sanction of so great a name as that of Calvin. In\njustice to his opinion on this subject, however, it should be stated, that\nhe distinctly recognized not only the propriety but the necessity of a\nconsecration of stated days for public religious services, without which\nregulation, he declares that \u201cit is so far from being possible to preserve\norder and decorum, that if it were abolished, the Church would be in\nimminent danger of immediate convulsion and ruin.\u201d It is much to be\nlamented that so great a mind should have been led astray on so important\na point by attempting to avoid an opposite extreme.\n\nThe Board of Publication have been induced to undertake this edition, by\nthe very generous offer of the First and Second Presbyterian Churches in\nBaltimore, of which the Rev. John Backus and the Rev. Dr. R. J.\nBreckinridge are respectively Pastors, to defray the expense of\nstereotyping the work. Under the direction of the Executive Committee of\nthe Board, the translation has been diligently compared throughout with\nthe original Latin and French, and various corrections have been made to\nconvey the meaning of the author more distinctly and accurately. This\nlaborious duty has been performed by a member of the Publishing Committee.\nThe intrinsic excellence of the work, taken in connection with the\nattractive style, and comparative cheapness, of the present edition,\ninduces the Committee to hope, that it may be widely circulated and\ncarefully studied, both by the clergy and laymen of the Presbyterian\nChurch.\n\nIn behalf of the Executive Committee,\n\nWilliam M. Engles, EDITOR.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe English Reader is here presented with a translation of one of the\nprincipal theological productions of the sixteenth century. Few persons,\ninto whose hands this translation is likely to fall, will require to be\ninformed that the Author of the original work was one of an illustrious\ntriumvirate, who acted a most conspicuous part in what has been generally\nand justly denominated THE REFORMATION. Of that important revolution in\necclesiastical affairs, so necessary to the interests of true religion,\nand productive of such immense advantages even to civil society, LUTHER,\nZUINGLE, and CALVIN, were honoured, by the providence of God, to be the\nmost highly distinguished instruments. It is no degradation to the memory\nof the many other ornaments of that age, to consider them as brilliant\nsatellites in the firmament of the Church, revolving round these primary\nluminaries, to whom they were indebted for much of that lustre which they\ndiffused over the earth; while they were all together revolving around one\nand the same common centre, though, it must be confessed, with\nconsiderable varieties of approximation, velocity, and obliquity in their\ncourses; yet all deriving more or less copious communications of light\nfrom the great Sun of the moral system, THE TRUE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.\n\nDiffering in the powers of their minds, as well as in the temperament of\ntheir bodily constitutions, placed in different circumstances, and called\nto act in different scenes, these leading Reformers, though engaged in the\nsame common cause, displayed their characteristic and peculiar\nexcellences; which, it is no disparagement of that cause to admit, were\nlikewise accompanied by peculiar failings. It is not the design of this\npreface to portray and discriminate their respective characters. They\nalike devoted their lives and labours to rescue Christianity from the\nabsurdities, superstitions, and vices by which it had been so deplorably\ndeformed, mutilated, and obscured, and to recall the attention of mankind\nfrom the doubtful traditions of men to the unerring word of God. But while\nthey were all distinguished Reformers, Calvin has been generally\nacknowledged to have been the most eminent theologian of the three.\n\nSuch was the superiority of the talents and attainments of Calvin to those\nof most other great men, that the strictest truth is in danger of being\ntaken for exaggeration. It is impossible for any candid and intelligent\nperson to have even a slight acquaintance with his writings, without\nadmiring his various knowledge, extensive learning, profound penetration,\nsolid judgment, acute reasoning, pure morality, and fervent piety.\n\nHis COMMENTARIES on the Scriptures have been celebrated for a juster\nmethod of exposition than had been exhibited by any preceding writer.\nAbove a hundred years after his death, Poole, the author of the Synopsis,\nin the preface to that valuable work, says, \u201cCalvin\u2019s Commentaries abound\nin solid discussions of theological subjects, and practical improvements\nof them. Subsequent writers have borrowed most of their materials from\nCalvin, and his interpretations adorn the books even of those who repay\nthe obligation by reproaching their master.\u201d And nothing can more\nsatisfactorily evince the high estimation to which they are still entitled\nfrom the biblical student, than the following testimony, given, after the\nlapse of another century, by the late learned Bishop Horsley: \u201cI hold the\nmemory of Calvin in high veneration: his works have a place in my library;\nand in the study of the Holy Scriptures, he is one of the commentators\nwhom I frequently consult.\u201d\n\nBut perhaps, of all the writings of Calvin, none has excited so much\nattention as his INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\nHis original design in commencing this work is stated by himself, in the\nbeginning of his dedication, to have been to supply his countrymen, the\nFrench, with an elementary compendium for their instruction in the\nprinciples of true religion. But we learn from Beza that, by the time of\nits completion, existing circumstances furnished the Author with an\nadditional motive for sending it into the world, during his residence at\nBasil, whither he had retired to avoid the persecution which was then\nraging in France against all the dissentients from the Church of Rome.\nFrancis the First, king of France, courted the friendship of the\nProtestant princes of Germany; and knowing their detestation of the\ncruelties which he employed against his subjects of the reformed religion,\nhe endeavoured to excuse his conduct by alleging that he caused none to be\nput to death except some few fanatics; who, so far from taking the word of\nGod as the rule of their faith, gave themselves up to the impulses of\ntheir disordered imaginations, and even openly avowed a contempt of\nmagistrates and sovereign princes. Unable to bear such foul aspersions of\nhis brethren, Calvin determined on the immediate publication of this\ntreatise, which he thought would serve as an answer to the calumnies\ncirculated by the enemies of the truth, and as an apology for his pious\nand persecuted countrymen.\n\nThe Dedication to Francis is one of the most masterly compositions of\nmodern times. The purity, elegance, and energy of style; the bold, yet\nrespectful, freedom of address; the firm attachment to the Divine word;\nthe Christian fortitude in the midst of persecution; the triumphant\nrefutation of the calumnies of detractors; with other qualities which\ndistinguish this celebrated remonstrance, will surely permit no reader of\ntaste or piety to withhold his concurrence from the general admiration\nwhich it has received.\n\nThe Author composed this treatise in Latin and French, and though, at its\nfirst appearance, it was little more than an outline of what it afterwards\nbecame, it was received with uncommon approbation, and a second edition of\nit was soon required. How many editions it passed through during his life,\nit is difficult, if not impossible, now to ascertain; but it obtained a\nvery extensive circulation, and was reprinted several times, and every\ntime was further improved and enlarged by him, till, in the year 1559,\ntwenty\u2010three years after the first impression, he put the finishing hand\nto his work, and published it in Latin and French, with his last\ncorrections and additions.\n\nThe circulation which it enjoyed was not confined to persons capable of\nreading it in the languages in which it was written. It was translated\ninto High Dutch, Low Dutch, Italian, and Spanish.\n\nSoon after the publication of the Author\u2019s last edition, it was translated\nfrom the Latin into English. In this language it appears to have reached\nsix editions in the life of the Translator. A reflection on the small\nnumber of persons who may be supposed to have had inclination and ability\nto read such a book at that period, compared with the number of readers in\nthe present age, may excite some wonder that there should have been a\ndemand for so many editions. But no surprise at this circumstance will be\nfelt by any person acquainted with the high estimation in which the works\nof the Author were held by the venerable Reformers of the Church of\nEngland, and their immediate successors, as well as by the great majority\nof religious people in this country. This is not a question of opinion,\nbut an undeniable fact. Dr. Heylin, the admirer and biographer of\nArchbishop Laud, speaking of the early part of the seventeenth century,\nsays, that Calvin\u2019s \u201cBook of Institutes was, for the most part, the\nfoundation on which the young divines of those times did build their\nstudies.\u201d The great Dr. Saunderson, who was chaplain to King Charles I.,\nand, after the restoration of Charles II., was created Bishop of Lincoln,\nsays, \u201cWhen I began to set myself to the study of divinity as my proper\nbusiness, Calvin\u2019s Institutions were recommended to me, as they were\ngenerally to all young scholars in those times, as the best and perfectest\nsystem of divinity, and the fittest to be laid as a ground\u2010work in the\nstudy of this profession. And, indeed, my expectation was not at all\ndeceived in the reading of those Institutions.\u201d(1)\n\nThe great changes which have taken place in our language render it\ndifficult to form a correct opinion of the merits of Mr. Norton\u2019s\ntranslation, which was first published about two hundred and fifty years\nago. It must give rather a favourable idea of its execution, that it was\ncarefully revised by the Rev. David Whitehead, a man of learning and\npiety, who, in the reign of Henry VIII., was nominated by Archbishop\nCranmer to a bishopric in Ireland, and, soon after the accession of Queen\nElizabeth, was solicited by that Princess to fill the metropolitan see of\nCanterbury, but declined the preferment. But, whatever were the merits or\ndefects of that translation at its first appearance, it has long been too\nantiquated, uncouth, and obscure, to convey any just idea of the original\nwork, and abounds with passages which, to the modern English reader,\ncannot but be altogether unintelligible.\n\nThe intrinsic excellence of the book, its importance in the history of\ntheological controversy, the celebrity of the Author, the application of\nhis name to designate the leading principles of the system he maintained,\nand the frequent collision of sentiment respecting various parts of that\nsystem, combine with other considerations to render it a matter of wonder,\nthat it has not long ago been given to the English public in a new dress.\nThe importance of it has also been much increased by the recent\ncontroversy respecting Calvinism, commenced by Dr. Tomline, the present\nBishop of Lincoln, in which such direct and copious reference has been\nmade to the writings of this Reformer, and especially to his CHRISTIAN\nINSTITUTES. These circumstances and considerations have led to the present\ntranslation and publication, which, from the very respectable\nencouragement it has received, the Translator trusts will be regarded as\nan acceptable service to the religious public.\n\nAmong the different methods of translation which have been recommended, he\nhas adopted that which appeared to him best fitted to the present\nundertaking. A servile adherence to the letter of the original, the style\nof which is so very remote from the English idiom, he thought would convey\na very inadequate representation of the work; such extreme fidelity, to\nuse an expression of Cowper\u2019s, being seldom successful, even in a faithful\ntransmission of the precise sentiments of the author to the mind of the\nreader. A mere attention to the ideas and sentiments of the original, to\nthe neglect of its style and manner, would expose the Translator of a\ntreatise of this nature to no small danger of misrepresenting the meaning\nof the Author, by too frequent and unnecessary deviations from his\nlanguage. He has, therefore, aimed at a medium between servility and\nlooseness, and endeavoured to follow the style of the original as far as\nthe respective idioms of the Latin and English would admit.\n\nAfter the greater part of the work had been translated, he had the\nhappiness to meet with an edition in French of which he has availed\nhimself in translating the remainder, and in the revision of what he had\ntranslated before. Every person, who understands any two languages, will\nbe aware that the ambiguity of one will sometimes be explained by the\nprecision of another; and, notwithstanding the acknowledged superiority of\nthe Latin to the French in most of the qualities which constitute the\nexcellence of a language, the case of the article is not the only one in\nwhich Calvin\u2019s French elucidates his Latin.\n\nThe scriptural quotations which occur in the work, the Translator has\ngiven, generally, in the words of our common English version; sometimes\naccording to the readings in the margin of that version; and, in a few\ninstances, he has literally translated the version adopted by the Author,\nwhere the context required his peculiar reading to be preserved. Almost\nall the writers of that age, writing chiefly in a dead language, were\naccustomed to speak of their adversaries in language which the polished\nmanners of the modern times have discarded, and which would now be deemed\nilliberal and scurrilous. Where these cases occur, the Translator has not\nthought himself bound to a literal rendering of every word, or at liberty\nto refine them entirely away, but has adopted such expressions as he\napprehends will give a faithful representation of the spirit of the Author\nto modern readers.\n\nIntending this work as a complete system of theology, the Author has made\nit the repository of his sentiments on all points of faith and practice.\nThe whole being distributed into four parts, in conformity to the\nApostles\u2019 Creed, and this plan being very different from that of most\nother bodies of divinity, the Translator has borrowed from the Latin\nedition of Amsterdam a very perspicuous general syllabus, which will give\nthe reader a clear view of the original design and plan of the treatise.\n\nHe would not be understood to represent these Institutes as a perfect\nsummary of Christian doctrines and morals, or to profess an unqualified\napprobation of all the sentiments they contain. This is a homage to which\nno uninspired writings can ever be entitled. But the simplicity of the\nmethod; the freedom from the barbarous terms, captious questions, minute\ndistinctions, and intricate subtilties of many other Divines; the\nclearness and closeness of argument; the complete refutation of the\nadvocates of the Romish Church, sometimes by obvious conclusions from\ntheir professed principles, sometimes by clear proofs of the absurdities\nthey involve; the intimate knowledge of ecclesiastical history; the\nintimate acquaintance with former theological controversies; the\nperspicuity of scriptural interpretation; and the uniform spirit of\ngenuine piety, which pervade the book, cannot escape the observation of\nany judicious reader.\n\nIt has been advised by some persons that the translation should be\naccompanied by a few notes, to elucidate and enforce some passages, and to\ncorrect others; but, on all the consideration which the Translator has\nbeen able to give to this subject, he has thought it would be best to\ncontent himself with the humble office of placing the sentiments of Calvin\nbefore the reader, with all the fidelity in his power, without any\naddition or limitation. He hopes that the present publication will serve\nthe cause of true religion, and that the reputation of the work itself\nwill sustain no diminution from the form in which it now appears.\n\nLONDON, _May 12, 1813_.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE TO AN EDITION PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1559, WITH HIS\nLAST CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.\n\n\nIn the first edition of this work, not expecting that success which the\nLord, in his infinite goodness, hath given, I handled the subject for the\nmost part in a superficial manner, as is usual in small treatises. But\nwhen I understood that it had obtained from almost all pious persons such\na favourable acceptance as I never could have presumed to wish, much less\nto hope; while I was conscious of receiving far more attention than I had\ndeserved, I thought it would evince great ingratitude, if I did not\nendeavour at least, according to my humble ability, to make some suitable\nreturn for the attentions paid to me\u2014attentions of themselves calculated\nto stimulate my industry. Nor did I attempt this only in the second\nedition; but in every succeeding one the work has been improved by some\nfurther enlargements. But though I repented not the labour then devoted to\nit, yet I never satisfied myself, till it was arranged in the order in\nwhich it is now published; and I trust I have here presented to my readers\nwhat their judgments will unite in approving. Of my diligent application\nto the accomplishment of this service for the Church of God, I can produce\nabundant proof. For, last winter, when I thought that a quartan ague would\nspeedily terminate in my death, the more my disorder increased, the less I\nspared myself, till I had finished this book, to leave it behind me, as\nsome grateful return to such kind solicitations of the religious public.\nIndeed, I would rather it had been done sooner; but it is soon enough, if\nwell enough. I shall think it has appeared at the proper time, when I\nshall find it to have been more beneficial than before to the Church of\nGod. This is my only wish.\n\nI should indeed be ill requited for my labour, if I did not content myself\nwith the approbation of God alone, despising equally the foolish and\nperverse judgments of ignorant men, and the calumnies and detractions of\nthe wicked. For though God hath wholly devoted my mind to study the\nenlargement of his kingdom, and the promotion of general usefulness; and I\nhave the testimony of my own conscience, of angels, and of God himself,\nthat, since I undertook the office of a teacher in the Church, I have had\nno other object in view than to profit the Church by maintaining the pure\ndoctrine of godliness; yet I suppose there is no man more slandered or\ncalumniated than myself. When this Preface was actually in the press, I\nhad certain information, that at Augsburg, where the States of the Empire\nwere assembled, a report had been circulated of my defection to popery,\nand received with unbecoming eagerness in the courts of the princes. This\nis the gratitude of those who cannot be unacquainted with the numerous\nproofs of my constancy, which not only refute such a foul calumny, but,\nwith all equitable and humane judges, ought to preserve me from it. But\nthe devil, with all his host, is deceived, if he think to overwhelm me\nwith vile falsehoods, or to render me more timid, indolent, or dilatory,\nby such indignities. For I trust that God, in his infinite goodness, will\nenable me to persevere with patient constancy in the career of his holy\ncalling; of which I afford my pious readers a fresh proof in this edition.\n\nNow, my design in this work has been to prepare and qualify students of\ntheology for the reading of the divine word, that they may have an easy\nintroduction to it, and be enabled to proceed in it without any\nobstruction. For I think I have given such a comprehensive summary, and\norderly arrangement of all the branches of religion, that, with proper\nattention, no person will find any difficulty in determining what ought to\nbe the principal objects of his research in the Scripture, and to what end\nhe ought to refer any thing it contains. This way, therefore, being\nprepared, if I should hereafter publish any expositions of the Scripture,\nI shall have no need to introduce long discussions respecting doctrines,\nor digressions on common topics, and therefore shall always compress them\nwithin a narrow compass. This will relieve the pious reader from great\ntrouble and tediousness, provided he come previously furnished with the\nnecessary information, by a knowledge of the present work. But as the\nreason of this design is very evident in my numerous Commentaries, I would\nrather have it known from the fact itself, than from my declaration.\n\nFarewell, friendly reader; and if you receive any benefit from my labours,\nlet me have the assistance of your prayers with God our Father.\n\nGENEVA, _1st August, 1559_.\n\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION.\n\n\n    _To His Most Christian Majesty_, FRANCIS, _King of the French, and\n    his Sovereign, John Calvin wisheth peace and salvation in Christ_.\n\n\nWhen I began this work, Sire, nothing was further from my thoughts than\nwriting a book which would afterwards be presented to your Majesty. My\nintention was only to lay down some elementary principles, by which\ninquirers on the subject of religion might be instructed in the nature of\ntrue piety. And this labour I undertook chiefly for my countrymen, the\nFrench, of whom I apprehended multitudes to be hungering and thirsting\nafter Christ, but saw very few possessing any real knowledge of him. That\nthis was my design, the book itself proves by its simple method and\nunadorned composition. But when I perceived that the fury of certain\nwicked men in your kingdom had grown to such a height, as to leave no room\nin the land for sound doctrine, I thought I should be usefully employed,\nif in the same work I delivered my instructions to them, and exhibited my\nconfession to you, that you may know the nature of that doctrine, which is\nthe object of such unbounded rage to those madmen who are now disturbing\nthe country with fire and sword. For I shall not be afraid to acknowledge,\nthat this treatise contains a summary of that very doctrine, which,\naccording to their clamours, deserves to be punished with imprisonment,\nbanishment, proscription, and flames, and to be exterminated from the face\nof the earth. I well know with what atrocious insinuations your ears have\nbeen filled by them, in order to render our cause most odious in your\nesteem; but your clemency should lead you to consider that, if accusation\nbe accounted a sufficient evidence of guilt, there will be an end of all\ninnocence in words and actions. If any one, indeed, with a view to bring\nan odium upon the doctrine which I am endeavouring to defend, should\nallege that it has long ago been condemned by the general consent, and\nsuppressed by many judicial decisions, this will be only equivalent to\nsaying, that it has been sometimes violently rejected through the\ninfluence and power of its adversaries, and sometimes insidiously and\nfraudulently oppressed by falsehoods, artifices, and calumnies. Violence\nis displayed, when sanguinary sentences are passed against it without the\ncause being heard; and fraud, when it is unjustly accused of sedition and\nmischief. Lest any one should suppose that these our complaints are\nunfounded, you yourself, Sire, can bear witness of the false calumnies\nwith which you hear it daily traduced; that its only tendency is to wrest\nthe sceptres of kings out of their hands, to overturn all the tribunals\nand judicial proceedings, to subvert all order and governments, to disturb\nthe peace and tranquillity of the people, to abrogate all laws, to scatter\nall properties and possessions, and, in a word, to involve every thing in\ntotal confusion. And yet you hear the smallest portion of what is alleged\nagainst it; for such horrible things are circulated amongst the vulgar,\nthat, if they were true, the whole world would justly pronounce it and its\nabettors worthy of a thousand fires and gibbets. Who, then, will wonder at\nits becoming the object of public odium, where credit is given to such\nmost iniquitous accusations? This is the cause of the general consent and\nconspiracy to condemn us and our doctrine. Hurried away with this impulse,\nthose who sit in judgment pronounce for sentences the prejudices they\nbrought from home with them; and think their duty fully discharged if they\ncondemn none to be punished but such as are convicted by their own\nconfession, or by sufficient proofs. Convicted of what crime? Of this\ncondemned doctrine, they say. But with what justice is it condemned? Now,\nthe ground of defence was not to abjure the doctrine itself, but to\nmaintain its truth. On this subject, however, not a word is allowed to be\nuttered.\n\nWherefore I beseech you, Sire,\u2014and surely it is not an unreasonable\nrequest,\u2014to take upon yourself the entire cognizance of this cause, which\nhas hitherto been confusedly and carelessly agitated, without any order of\nlaw, and with outrageous passion rather than judicial gravity. Think not\nthat I am now meditating my own individual defence, in order to effect a\nsafe return to my native country; for, though I feel the affection which\nevery man ought to feel for it, yet, under the existing circumstances, I\nregret not my removal from it. But I plead the cause of all the godly, and\nconsequently of Christ himself, which, having been in these times\npersecuted and trampled on in all ways in your kingdom, now lies in a most\ndeplorable state; and this indeed rather through the tyranny of certain\nPharisees, than with your knowledge. How this comes to pass is foreign to\nmy present purpose to say; but it certainly lies in a most afflicted\nstate. For the ungodly have gone to such lengths, that the truth of\nChrist, if not vanquished, dissipated, and entirely destroyed, is buried,\nas it were, in ignoble obscurity, while the poor, despised church is\neither destroyed by cruel massacres, or driven away into banishment, or\nmenaced and terrified into total silence. And still they continue their\nwonted madness and ferocity, pushing violently against the wall already\nbent, and finishing the ruin they have begun. In the mean time, no one\ncomes forward to plead the cause against such furies. If there be any\npersons desirous of appearing most favourable to the truth, they only\nventure an opinion, that forgiveness should be extended to the error and\nimprudence of ignorant people. For this is the language of these moderate\nmen, calling _that_ error and imprudence which they know to be the certain\ntruth of God, and _those_ ignorant people, whose understanding they\nperceive not to have been so despicable to Christ, but that he has\nfavoured them with the mysteries of his heavenly wisdom. Thus all are\nashamed of the Gospel. But it shall be yours, Sire, not to turn away your\nears or thoughts from so just a defence, especially in a cause of such\nimportance as the maintenance of God\u2019s glory unimpaired in the world, the\npreservation of the honour of divine truth, and the continuance of the\nkingdom of Christ uninjured among us. This is a cause worthy of your\nattention, worthy of your cognizance, worthy of your throne. This\nconsideration constitutes true royalty, to acknowledge yourself in the\ngovernment of your kingdom to be the minister of God. For where the glory\nof God is not made the end of the government, it is not a legitimate\nsovereignty, but a usurpation. And he is deceived who expects lasting\nprosperity in that kingdom which is not ruled by the sceptre of God, that\nis, his holy word; for that heavenly oracle cannot fail, which declares\nthat \u201cwhere there is no vision, the people perish.\u201d(2) Nor should you be\nseduced from this pursuit by a contempt of our meanness. We are fully\nconscious to ourselves how very mean and abject we are, being miserable\nsinners before God, and accounted most despicable by men; being (if you\nplease) the refuse of the world, deserving of the vilest appellations that\ncan be found; so that nothing remains for us to glory in before God, but\nhis mercy alone, by which, without any merit of ours, we have been\nadmitted to the hope of eternal salvation, and before men nothing but our\nweakness, the slightest confession of which is esteemed by them as the\ngreatest disgrace. But our doctrine must stand, exalted above all the\nglory, and invincible by all the power of the world; because it is not\nours, but the doctrine of the living God, and of his Christ, whom the\nFather hath constituted King, that he may have dominion from sea to sea,\nand from the river even to the ends of the earth, and that he may rule in\nsuch a manner, that the whole earth, with its strength of iron and with\nits splendour of gold and silver, smitten by the rod of his mouth, may be\nbroken to pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel;(3) for thus do the prophets\nforetell the magnificence of his kingdom.\n\nOur adversaries reply, that our pleading the word of God is a false\npretence, and that we are nefarious corrupters of it. But that this is not\nonly a malicious calumny, but egregious impudence, by reading our\nconfession, you will, in your wisdom, be able to judge. Yet something\nfurther is necessary to be said, to excite your attention, or at least to\nprepare your mind for this perusal. Paul\u2019s direction, that every prophecy\nbe framed \u201caccording to the analogy of faith,\u201d(4) has fixed an invariable\nstandard by which all interpretation of Scripture ought to be tried. If\nour principles be examined by this rule of faith, the victory is ours. For\nwhat is more consistent with faith than to acknowledge ourselves naked of\nall virtue, that we may be clothed by God; empty of all good, that we may\nbe filled by him; slaves to sin, that we may be liberated by him; blind,\nthat we may be enlightened by him; lame, that we may be guided; weak, that\nwe may be supported by him; to divest ourselves of all ground of glorying,\nthat he alone may be eminently glorious, and that we may glory in him?\nWhen we advance these and similar sentiments, they interrupt us with\ncomplaints that this is the way to overturn, I know not what blind light\nof nature, pretended preparations, free will, and works meritorious of\neternal salvation, together with all their supererogations; because they\ncannot bear that the praise and glory of all goodness, strength,\nrighteousness, and wisdom, should remain entirely with God. But we read of\nnone being reproved for having drawn too freely from the fountain of\nliving waters; on the contrary, they are severely upbraided who have\n\u201chewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.\u201d(5)\nAgain, what is more consistent with faith, than to assure ourselves of God\nbeing a propitious Father, where Christ is acknowledged as a brother and\nMediator? than securely to expect all prosperity and happiness from Him,\nwhose unspeakable love towards us went so far, that \u201che spared not his own\nSon, but delivered him up for us?\u201d(6) than to rest in the certain\nexpectation of salvation and eternal life, when we reflect upon the\nFather\u2019s gift of Christ, in whom such treasures are hidden? Here they\noppose us, and complain that this certainty of confidence is chargeable\nwith arrogance and presumption. But as we ought to presume nothing of\nourselves, so we should presume every thing of God; nor are we divested of\nvain glory for any other reason than that we may learn to glory in the\nLord. What shall I say more? Review, Sire, all the parts of our cause, and\nconsider us worse than the most abandoned of mankind, unless you clearly\ndiscover that we thus \u201cboth labour and suffer reproach, because we trust\nin the living God,\u201d(7) because we believe that \u201cthis is life eternal, to\nknow the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent.\u201d(8) For this\nhope some of us are bound in chains, others are lashed with scourges,\nothers are carried about as laughing\u2010stocks, others are outlawed, others\nare cruelly tortured, others escape by flight; but we are all reduced to\nextreme perplexities, execrated with dreadful curses, cruelly slandered,\nand treated with the greatest indignities. Now, look at our adversaries,\n(I speak of the order of priests, at whose will and directions others\ncarry on these hostilities against us,) and consider a little with me by\nwhat principles they are actuated. The true religion, which is taught in\nthe Scriptures, and ought to be universally maintained, they readily\npermit both themselves and others to be ignorant of, and to treat with\nneglect and contempt. They think it unimportant what any one holds or\ndenies concerning God and Christ, provided he submits his mind with an\nimplicit faith (as they call it) to the judgment of the Church. Nor are\nthey much affected, if the glory of God happens to be violated with open\nblasphemies, provided no one lift a finger against the primacy of the\nApostolic See, and the authority of their holy Mother Church. Why,\ntherefore, do they contend with such extreme bitterness and cruelty for\nthe mass, purgatory, pilgrimages, and similar trifles, and deny that any\npiety can be maintained without a most explicit faith, so to speak, in\nthese things; whereas they prove none of them from the Word of God? Why,\nbut because their belly is their god, their kitchen is their religion;\ndeprived of which they consider themselves no longer as Christians, or\neven as men. For though some feast themselves in splendour, and others\nsubsist on slender fare, yet all live on the same pot, which, without this\nfuel, would not only cool, but completely freeze. Every one of them,\ntherefore, who is most solicitous for his belly, is found to be a most\nstrenuous champion for their faith. Indeed, they universally exert\nthemselves for the preservation of their kingdom, and the repletion of\ntheir bellies; but not one of them discovers the least indication of\nsincere zeal.\n\nNor do their attacks on our doctrine cease here; they urge every topic of\naccusation and abuse to render it an object of hatred or suspicion. They\ncall it novel, and of recent origin,\u2014they cavil at it as doubtful and\nuncertain,\u2014they inquire by what miracles it is confirmed,\u2014they ask whether\nit is right for it to be received contrary to the consent of so many holy\nfathers, and the custom of the highest antiquity,\u2014they urge us to confess\nthat it is schismatical in stirring up opposition against the Church, or\nthat the Church was wholly extinct for many ages, during which no such\nthing was known.\u2014Lastly, they say all arguments are unnecessary; for that\nits nature may be determined by its fruits, since it has produced such a\nmultitude of sects, so many factious tumults, and such great\nlicentiousness of vices. It is indeed very easy for them to insult a\ndeserted cause with the credulous and ignorant multitude; but, if we had\nalso the liberty of speaking in our turn, this acrimony, which they now\ndiscover in violently foaming against us with equal licentiousness and\nimpunity, would presently cool.\n\nIn the first place, their calling it novel is highly injurious to God,\nwhose holy word deserves not to be accused of novelty. I have no doubt of\nits being new to them, to whom Jesus Christ and the Gospel are equally\nnew. But those who know the antiquity of this preaching of Paul, \u201cthat\nJesus Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification,\u201d(9)\nwill find no novelty among us. That it has long been concealed, buried,\nand unknown, is the crime of human impiety. Now that the goodness of God\nhas restored it to us, it ought at least to be allowed its just claim of\nantiquity.\n\nFrom the same source of ignorance springs the notion of its being doubtful\nand uncertain. This is the very thing which the Lord complains of by his\nprophet; that \u201cthe ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master\u2019s\ncrib,\u201d(10) but that his people know not him. But however they may laugh at\nits uncertainty, if they were called to seal their own doctrine with their\nblood and lives, it would appear how much they value it. Very different is\nour confidence, which dreads neither the terrors of death, nor even the\ntribunal of God.\n\nTheir requiring miracles of us is altogether unreasonable; for we forge no\nnew Gospel, but retain the very same whose truth was confirmed by all the\nmiracles ever wrought by Christ and the apostles. But they have this\npeculiar advantage above us, that they can confirm their faith by\ncontinual miracles even to this day. But the truth is, they allege\nmiracles which are calculated to unsettle a mind otherwise well\nestablished, they are so frivolous and ridiculous, or vain and false. Nor,\nif they were ever so preternatural, ought they to have any weight in\nopposition to the truth of God, since the name of God ought to be\nsanctified in all places and at all times, whether by miraculous events,\nor by the common order of nature. This fallacy might perhaps be more\nspecious, if the Scripture did not apprize us of the legitimate end and\nuse of miracles. For Mark informs us, that the miracles which followed the\npreaching of the apostles were wrought in confirmation(11) of it, and Luke\ntells us, that(12) \u201cthe Lord gave testimony to the word of his grace,\u201d\nwhen \u201csigns and wonders\u201d were \u201cdone by the hands\u201d of the apostles. Very\nsimilar to which is the assertion of the apostle, that \u201csalvation was\nconfirmed\u201d by the preaching of the Gospel, \u201cGod also bearing witness with\nsigns, and wonders, and divers miracles.\u201d(13) But those things which we\nare told were seals of the Gospel, shall we pervert to undermine the faith\nof the Gospel? Those things which were designed to be testimonials of the\ntruth, shall we accommodate to the confirmation of falsehood? It is right,\ntherefore, that the doctrine, which, according to the evangelist, claims\nthe first attention, be examined and tried in the first place; and if it\nbe approved, then it ought to derive confirmation from miracles. But it is\nthe characteristic of sound doctrine, given by Christ, that it tends to\npromote, not the glory of men, but the glory of God.(14) Christ having\nlaid down this proof of a doctrine, it is wrong to esteem those as\nmiracles which are directed to any other end than the glorification of the\nname of God alone. And we should remember that Satan has his wonders,\nwhich, though they are juggling tricks rather than real miracles, are such\nas to delude the ignorant and inexperienced. Magicians and enchanters have\nalways been famous for miracles; idolatry has been supported by\nastonishing miracles; and yet we admit them not as proofs of the\nsuperstition of magicians or idolaters. With this engine also the\nsimplicity of the vulgar was anciently assailed by the Donatists, who\nabounded in miracles. We therefore give the same answer now to our\nadversaries as Augustine(15) gave to the Donatists, that our Lord hath\ncautioned us against these miracle\u2010mongers by his prediction, that there\nshould arise false prophets, who, by various signs and lying wonders,\n\u201cshould deceive (if possible) the very elect.\u201d(16) And Paul has told us,\nthat the kingdom of Antichrist would be \u201cwith all power, and signs, and\nlying wonders.\u201d(17) But these miracles (they say) are wrought, not by\nidols, or sorcerers, or false prophets, but by saints; as if we were\nignorant, that it is a stratagem of Satan to \u201ctransform\u201d himself \u201cinto an\nangel of light.\u201d(18) At the tomb of Jeremiah,(19) who was buried in Egypt,\nthe Egyptians formerly offered sacrifices and other divine honours. Was\nnot this abusing God\u2019s holy prophet to the purposes of idolatry? Yet they\nsupposed this veneration of his sepulchre to be rewarded with a cure for\nthe bite of serpents. What shall we say, but that it has been, and ever\nwill be, the most righteous vengeance of God to \u201csend those who receive\nnot the love of the truth strong delusions, that they should believe a\nlie\u201d?(20) We are by no means without miracles, and such as are certain,\nand not liable to cavils. But those under which they shelter themselves\nare mere illusions of Satan, seducing the people from the true worship of\nGod to vanity.\n\nAnother calumny is their charging us with opposition to the fathers,\u2014I\nmean the writers of the earlier and purer ages,\u2014as if those writers were\nabettors of their impiety; whereas, if the contest were to be terminated\nby this authority, the victory in most parts of the controversy\u2014to speak\nin the most modest terms\u2014would be on our side. But though the writings of\nthose fathers contain many wise and excellent things, yet in some respects\nthey have suffered the common fate of mankind; these very dutiful children\nreverence only their errors and mistakes, but their excellences they\neither overlook, or conceal, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said to\nbe their only study to collect dross from the midst of gold. Then they\noverwhelm us with senseless clamours, as despisers and enemies of the\nfathers. But we do not hold them in such contempt, but that, if it were\nconsistent with my present design, I could easily support by their\nsuffrages most of the sentiments that we now maintain. But while we make\nuse of their writings, we always remember that \u201call things are ours,\u201d to\nserve us, not to have dominion over us, and that \u201cwe are Christ\u2019s\u201d(21)\nalone, and owe him universal obedience. He who neglects this distinction\nwill have nothing decided in religion; since those holy men were ignorant\nof many things, frequently at variance with each other, and sometimes even\ninconsistent with themselves. There is great reason, they say, for the\nadmonition of Solomon, \u201cnot to transgress or remove the ancient landmarks,\nwhich our fathers have set.\u201d(22) But the same rule is not applicable to\nthe bounding of fields, and to the obedience of faith, which ought to be\nready to \u201cforget her own people and her father\u2019s house.\u201d(23) But if they\nare so fond of allegorizing, why do they not explain the apostles, rather\nthan any others, to be those fathers, whose appointed landmarks it is so\nunlawful to remove? For this is the interpretation of Jerome, whose works\nthey have received into their canons. But if they insist on preserving the\nlandmarks of those whom they understand to be intended, why do they at\npleasure so freely transgress them themselves? There were two fathers,(24)\nof whom one said, that our God neither eats nor drinks, and therefore\nneeds neither cups nor dishes; the other, that sacred things require no\ngold, and that gold is no recommendation of that which is not purchased\nwith gold. This landmark therefore is transgressed by those who in sacred\nthings are so much delighted with gold, silver, ivory, marble, jewels, and\nsilks, and suppose that God is not rightly worshipped, unless all things\nabound in exquisite splendour, or rather extravagant profusion. There was\na father(25) who said he freely partook of flesh on a day when others\nabstained from it, because he was a Christian. They transgress the\nlandmarks therefore when they curse the soul that tastes flesh in Lent.\nThere were two fathers,(26) of whom one said, that a monk who labours not\nwith his hands is on a level with a cheat or a robber; and the other, that\nit is unlawful for monks to live on what is not their own, notwithstanding\ntheir assiduity in contemplations, studies, and prayers; and they have\ntransgressed this landmark by placing the idle and distended carcasses of\nmonks in cells and brothels, to be pampered on the substance of others.\nThere was a father(27) who said, that to see a painted image of Christ, or\nof any saint, in the temples of Christians, is a dreadful abomination. Nor\nwas this merely the sentence of an individual; it was also decreed by an\necclesiastical council, that the object of worship should not be painted\non the walls. They are far from confining themselves within these\nlandmarks, for every corner is filled with images. Another father(28) has\nadvised that, after having discharged the office of humanity towards the\ndead by the rites of sepulture, we should leave them to their repose. They\nbreak through these landmarks by inculcating a constant solicitude for the\ndead. There was one of the fathers(29) who asserted that the substance of\nbread and wine in the eucharist ceases not, but remains, just as the\nsubstance of the human nature remains in the Lord Christ united with the\ndivine. They transgress this landmark therefore by pretending that, on the\nwords of the Lord being recited, the substance of bread and wine ceases,\nand is transubstantiated into his body and blood. There were fathers(30)\nwho, while they exhibited to the universal Church only one eucharist, and\nforbade all scandalous and immoral persons to approach it, at the same\ntime severely censured all who, when present, did not partake of it. How\nfar have they removed these landmarks, when they fill not only the\nchurches, but even private houses, with their masses, admit all who choose\nto be spectators of them, and every one the more readily in proportion to\nthe magnitude of his contribution, however chargeable with impurity and\nwickedness! They invite none to faith in Christ and a faithful\nparticipation of the sacraments; but rather for purposes of gain bring\nforward their own work instead of the grace and merit of Christ. There\nwere two fathers,(31) of whom one contended that the use of Christ\u2019s\nsacred supper should be wholly forbidden to those who, content with\npartaking of one kind, abstained from the other; the other strenuously\nmaintained that Christian people ought not to be refused the blood of\ntheir Lord, for the confession of whom they are required to shed their\nown. These landmarks also they have removed, in appointing, by an\ninviolable law, that very thing which the former punished with\nexcommunication, and the latter gave a powerful reason for disapproving.\nThere was a father(32) who asserted the temerity of deciding on either\nside of an obscure subject, without clear and evident testimonies of\nScripture. This landmark they forgot when they made so many constitutions,\ncanons, and judicial determinations, without any authority from the word\nof God. There was a father(33) who upbraided Montanus with having, among\nother heresies, been the first imposer of laws for the observance of\nfasts. They have gone far beyond this landmark also, in establishing fasts\nby the strictest laws. There was a father(34) who denied that marriage\nought to be forbidden to the ministers of the Church, and pronounced\ncohabitation with a wife to be real chastity; and there were fathers who\nassented to his judgment. They have transgressed these landmarks by\nenjoining on their priests the strictest celibacy. There was a father who\nthought that attention should be paid to Christ only, of whom it is said,\n\u201cHear ye him,\u201d and that no regard should be had to what others before us\nhave either said or done, only to what has been commanded by Christ, who\nis pre\u00ebminent over all. This landmark they neither prescribe to\nthemselves, nor permit to be observed by others, when they set up over\nthemselves and others any masters rather than Christ. There was a\nfather(35) who contended that the Church ought not to take the precedence\nof Christ, because his judgment is always according to truth; but\necclesiastical judges, like other men, may generally be deceived. Breaking\ndown this landmark also, they scruple not to assert, that all the\nauthority of the Scripture depends on the decision of the Church. All the\nfathers, with one heart and voice, have declared it execrable and\ndetestable for the holy word of God to be contaminated with the subtleties\nof sophists, and perplexed by the wrangles of logicians. Do they confine\nthemselves within these landmarks, when the whole business of their lives\nis to involve the simplicity of the Scripture in endless controversies,\nand worse than sophistical wrangles? so that if the fathers were now\nrestored to life, and heard this art of wrangling, which they call\nspeculative divinity, they would not suspect the dispute to have the least\nreference to God. But if I would enumerate all the instances in which the\nauthority of the fathers is insolently rejected by those who would be\nthought their dutiful children, my address would exceed all reasonable\nbounds. Months and years would be insufficient for me. And yet such is\ntheir consummate and incorrigible impudence, they dare to censure us for\npresuming to transgress the ancient landmarks.\n\nNor can they gain any advantage against us by their argument from custom;\nfor, if we were compelled to submit to custom, we should have to complain\nof the greatest injustice. Indeed, if the judgments of men were correct,\ncustom should be sought among the good. But the fact is often very\ndifferent. What appears to be practised by many soon obtains the force of\na custom. And human affairs have scarcely ever been in so good a state as\nfor the majority to be pleased with things of real excellence. From the\nprivate vices of multitudes, therefore, has arisen public error, or rather\na common agreement of vices, which these good men would now have to be\nreceived as law. It is evident to all who can see, that the world is\ninundated with more than an ocean of evils, that it is overrun with\nnumerous destructive pests, that every thing is fast verging to ruin, so\nthat we must altogether despair of human affairs, or vigorously and even\nviolently oppose such immense evils. And the remedy is rejected for no\nother reason, but because we have been accustomed to the evils so long.\nBut let public error be tolerated in human society; in the kingdom of God\nnothing but his eternal truth should be heard and regarded, which no\nsuccession of years, no custom, no confederacy, can circumscribe. Thus\nIsaiah once taught the chosen people of God: \u201cSay ye not, A confederacy,\nto all to whom this people shall say, A confederacy;\u201d that is, that they\nshould not unite in the wicked consent of the people; \u201cnor fear their\nfear, nor be afraid,\u201d but rather \u201csanctify the Lord of hosts,\u201d that he\nmight \u201cbe their fear and their dread.\u201d(36)Now, therefore, let them, if\nthey please, object against us past ages and present examples; if we\n\u201csanctify the Lord of hosts,\u201d we shall not be much afraid. For, whether\nmany ages agree in similar impiety, he is mighty to take vengeance on the\nthird and fourth generation; or whether the whole world combine in the\nsame iniquity, he has given an example of the fatal end of those who sin\nwith a multitude, by destroying all men with a deluge, and preserving Noah\nand his small family, in order that his individual faith might condemn the\nwhole world. Lastly, a corrupt custom is nothing but an epidemical\npestilence, which is equally fatal to its objects, though they fall with a\nmultitude. Besides, they ought to consider a remark, somewhere made by\nCyprian,(37) that persons who sin through ignorance, though they cannot be\nwholly exculpated, may yet be considered in some degree excusable; but\nthose who obstinately reject the truth offered by the Divine goodness, are\nwithout any excuse at all.\n\nNor are we so embarrassed by their dilemma as to be obliged to confess,\neither that the Church was for some time extinct, or that we have now a\ncontroversy with the Church. The Church of Christ has lived, and will\ncontinue to live, as long as Christ shall reign at the right hand of the\nFather, by whose hand she is sustained, by whose protection she is\ndefended, by whose power she is preserved in safety. For he will\nundoubtedly perform what he once promised, to be with his people \u201ceven to\nthe end of the world.\u201d(38) We have no quarrel against the Church, for with\none consent we unite with all the company of the faithful in worshipping\nand adoring the one God and Christ the Lord, as he has been adored by all\nthe pious in all ages. But our opponents deviate widely from the truth\nwhen they acknowledge no Church but what is visible to the corporeal eye,\nand endeavour to circumscribe it by those limits within which it is far\nfrom being included. Our controversy turns on the two following\npoints:\u2014first, they contend that the form of the Church is always apparent\nand visible; secondly, they place that form in the see of the Roman Church\nand her order of prelates. We assert, on the contrary, first, that the\nChurch may exist without any visible form; secondly, that its form is not\ncontained in that external splendour which they foolishly admire, but is\ndistinguished by a very different criterion, viz. the pure preaching of\nGod\u2019s word, and the legitimate administration of the sacraments. They are\nnot satisfied unless the Church can always be pointed out with the finger.\nBut how often among the Jewish people was it so disorganized, as to have\nno visible form left? What splendid form do we suppose could be seen, when\nElias deplored his being left alone?(39) How long, after the coming of\nChrist, did it remain without any external form? How often, since that\ntime, have wars, seditions, and heresies, oppressed and totally obscured\nit? If they had lived at that period, would they have believed that any\nChurch existed? Yet Elias was informed that there were \u201cleft seven\nthousand\u201d who had \u201cnot bowed the knee to Baal.\u201d Nor should we entertain\nany doubt of Christ\u2019s having always reigned on earth ever since his\nascension to heaven. But if the pious at such periods had sought for any\nform evident to their senses, must not their hearts have been quite\ndiscouraged? Indeed it was already considered by Hilary in his day as a\ngrievous error, that people were absorbed in foolish admiration of the\nepiscopal dignity, and did not perceive the dreadful mischiefs concealed\nunder that disguise. For this is his language:(40) \u201cOne thing I advise\nyou\u2014beware of Antichrist, for you have an improper attachment to walls;\nyour veneration for the Church of God is misplaced on houses and\nbuildings; you wrongly introduce under them the name of peace. Is there\nany doubt that they will be seats of Antichrist? I think mountains, woods,\nand lakes, prisons and whirlpools, less dangerous; for these were the\nscenes of retirement or banishment in which the prophets prophesied.\u201d But\nwhat excites the veneration of the multitude in the present day for their\nhorned bishops, but the supposition that those are the holy prelates of\nreligion whom they see presiding over great cities? Away, then, with such\nstupid admiration. Let us rather leave it to the Lord, since he alone\n\u201cknoweth them that are his,\u201d(41) sometimes to remove from human\nobservation all external knowledge of his Church. I admit this to be a\ndreadful judgment of God on the earth; but if it be deserved by the\nimpiety of men, why do we attempt to resist the righteous vengeance of\nGod? Thus the Lord punished the ingratitude of men in former ages; for, in\nconsequence of their resistance to his truth, and extinction of the light\nhe had given them, he permitted them to be blinded by sense, deluded by\nabsurd falsehoods, and immerged in profound darkness, so that there was no\nappearance of the true Church left; yet, at the same time, in the midst of\ndarkness and errors, he preserved his scattered and concealed people from\ntotal destruction. Nor is this to be wondered at; for he knew how to save\nin all the confusion of Babylon, and the flame of the fiery furnace. But\nhow dangerous it is to estimate the form of the Church by I know not what\nvain pomp, which they contend for; I shall rather briefly suggest than\nstate at large, lest I should protract this discourse to an excessive\nlength. The Pope, they say, who holds the Apostolic see, and the bishops\nanointed and consecrated by him, provided they are equipped with mitres\nand crosiers, represent the Church, and ought to be considered as the\nChurch. Therefore they cannot err. How is this?\u2014Because they are pastors\nof the Church, and consecrated to the Lord. And did not the pastoral\ncharacter belong to Aaron, and the other rulers of Israel? Yet Aaron and\nhis sons, after their designation to the priesthood, fell into error when\nthey made the golden calf.(42) According to this mode of reasoning, why\nshould not the four hundred prophets, who lied to Ahab, have represented\nthe Church?(43) But the Church remained on the side of Micaiah, solitary\nand despised as he was, and out of his mouth proceeded the truth. Did not\nthose prophets exhibit both the name and appearance of the Church, who\nwith united violence rose up against Jeremiah, and threatened and boasted,\n\u201cthe law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor\nthe word from the prophet\u201d?(44) Jeremiah is sent singly against the whole\nmultitude of prophets, with a denunciation from the Lord, that the \u201claw\nshall perish from the priest, counsel from the wise, and the word from the\nprophet.\u201d(45) And was there not the like external respectability in the\ncouncil convened by the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, to consult\nabout putting Christ to death?(46) Now, let them go and adhere to the\nexternal appearance, and thereby make Christ and all the prophets\nschismatics, and, on the other hand, make the ministers of Satan\ninstruments of the Holy Spirit. But if they speak their real sentiments,\nlet them answer me sincerely, what nation or place they consider as the\nseat of the Church, from the time when, by a decree of the council of\nBasil, Eugenius was deposed and degraded from the pontificate, and Amadeus\nsubstituted in his place. They cannot deny that the council, as far as\nrelates to external forms, was a lawful one, and summoned not only by one\npope, but by two. There Eugenius was pronounced guilty of schism,\nrebellion, and obstinacy, together with all the host of cardinals and\nbishops who had joined him in attempting a dissolution of the council. Yet\nafterwards, assisted by the favour of princes, he regained the quiet\npossession of his former dignity. That election of Amadeus, though\nformally made by the authority of a general and holy synod, vanished into\nsmoke; and he was appeased with a cardinal\u2019s hat, like a barking dog with\na morsel. From the bosom of those heretics and rebels have proceeded all\nthe popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and priests, ever since. Here they\nmust stop. For to which party will they give the title of the Church? Will\nthey deny that this was a general council, which wanted nothing to\ncomplete its external majesty, being solemnly convened by two papal bulls,\nconsecrated by a presiding legate of the Roman see, and well regulated in\nevery point of order, and invariably preserving the same dignity to the\nlast? Will they acknowledge Eugenius to be a schismatic, with all his\nadherents, by whom they have all been consecrated? Either, therefore, let\nthem give a different definition of the form of the Church, or, whatever\nbe their number, we shall account them all schismatics, as having been\nknowingly and voluntarily ordained by heretics. But if it had never been\nascertained before, that the Church is not confined to external pomps,\nthey would themselves afford us abundant proof of it, who have so long\nsuperciliously exhibited themselves to the world under the title of the\nChurch, though they were at the same time the deadly plagues of it. I\nspeak not of their morals, and those tragical exploits with which all\ntheir lives abound, since they profess themselves to be Pharisees, who are\nto be heard and not imitated. I refer to the very doctrine itself, on\nwhich they found their claim to be considered as the Church. If you devote\na portion of your leisure, Sire, to the perusal of our writings, you will\nclearly discover that doctrine to be a fatal pestilence of souls, the\nfirebrand, ruin, and destruction of the Church.\n\nFinally, they betray great want of candour, by invidiously repeating what\ngreat commotions, tumults, and contentions, have attended the preaching of\nour doctrine, and what effects it produces in many persons. For it is\nunfair to charge it with those evils which ought to be attributed to the\nmalice of Satan. It is the native property of the Divine word, never to\nmake its appearance without disturbing Satan, and rousing his opposition.\nThis is the most certain and unequivocal criterion by which it is\ndistinguished from false doctrines, which are easily broached when they\nare heard with general attention, and received with applauses by the\nworld. Thus, in some ages, when all things were immerged in profound\ndarkness, the prince of this world amused and diverted himself with the\ngenerality of mankind, and, like another Sardanapalus, gave himself up to\nhis ease and pleasures in perfect peace; for what would he do but amuse\nand divert himself, in the quiet and undisturbed possession of his\nkingdom? But when the light shining from above dissipated a portion of his\ndarkness\u2014when that Mighty One alarmed and assaulted his kingdom\u2014then he\nbegan to shake off his wonted torpor, and to hurry on his armour. First,\nindeed, he stirred up the power of men to suppress the truth by violence\nat its first appearance; and when this proved ineffectual, he had recourse\nto subtlety. He made the Catabaptists, and other infamous characters, the\ninstruments of exciting dissensions and doctrinal controversies, with a\nview to obscure and finally to extinguish it. And now he continues to\nattack it in both ways; for he endeavours to root up this genuine seed by\nmeans of human force, and at the same time tries every effort to choke it\nwith his tares, that it may not grow and produce fruit. But all his\nattempts will be vain, if we attend to the admonitions of the Lord, who\nhath long ago made us acquainted with his devices, that we might not be\ncaught by him unawares, and has armed us with sufficient means of defence\nagainst all his assaults. But to charge the word of God with the odium of\nseditions, excited against it by wicked and rebellious men, or of sects\nraised by impostors,\u2014is not this extreme malignity? Yet it is not without\nexample in former times. Elias was asked whether it was not he \u201cthat\ntroubled Israel.\u201d(47) Christ was represented by the Jews as guilty of\nsedition.(48) The apostles were accused of stirring up popular\ncommotions.(49) Wherein does this differ from the conduct of those who, at\nthe present day, impute to us all the disturbances, tumults, and\ncontentions, that break out against us? But the proper answer to such\naccusations has been taught us by Elias, that the dissemination of errors\nand the raising of tumults is not chargeable on us, but on those who are\nresisting the power of God. But as this one reply is sufficient to repress\ntheir temerity, so, on the other hand, we must meet the weakness of some\npersons, who are frequently disturbed with such offences, and become\nunsettled and wavering in their minds. Now, that they may not stumble and\nfall amidst this agitation and perplexity, let them know that the apostles\nin their day experienced the same things that now befall us. There were\n\u201cunlearned and unstable\u201d men, Peter says, who \u201cwrested\u201d the inspired\nwritings of Paul \u201cto their own destruction.\u201d(50) There were despisers of\nGod, who, when they heard that \u201cwhere sin abounded grace did much more\nabound,\u201d immediately concluded, Let us \u201ccontinue in sin, that grace may\nabound.\u201d When they heard that the faithful were \u201cnot under the law,\u201d they\nimmediately croaked, \u201cWe will sin, because we are not under the law, but\nunder grace.\u201d(51) There were some who accused him as an encourager of sin.\nMany false apostles crept in, to destroy the churches he had raised. \u201cSome\npreached\u201d the gospel \u201cof envy and strife, not in sincerity,\u201d maliciously\n\u201csupposing to add affliction to his bonds.\u201d(52) In some places the Gospel\nwas attended with little benefit. \u201cAll were seeking their own, not the\nthings of Jesus Christ.\u201d(53) Others returned \u201clike dogs to their vomit,\nand like swine to their wallowing in the mire.\u201d(54) Many perverted the\nliberty of the spirit into the licentiousness of the flesh. Many\ninsinuated themselves as brethren, who afterwards brought the pious into\ndangers. Various contentions were excited among the brethren themselves.\nWhat was to be done by the apostles in such circumstances? Should they not\nhave dissembled for a time, or rather have rejected and deserted that\nGospel which appeared to be the nursery of so many disputes, the cause of\nso many dangers, the occasion of so many offences? But in such\ndifficulties as these, their minds were relieved by this reflection, that\nChrist is the \u201cstone of stumbling and rock of offence,\u201d(55) \u201cset for the\nfall and rising again of many, and for a sign which shall be spoken\nagainst;\u201d(56) and armed with this confidence, they proceeded boldly\nthrough all the dangers of tumults and offences. The same consideration\nshould support us, since Paul declares it to be the perpetual character of\nthe Gospel, that it is \u201ca savour of death unto death in them that\nperish,\u201d(57) although it was rather given us to be the \u201csavour of life\nunto life,\u201d and \u201cthe power of God to\u201d the \u201csalvation\u201d of the faithful;(58)\nwhich we also should certainly experience it to be, if we did not corrupt\nthis eminent gift of God by our ingratitude, and pervert to our\ndestruction what ought to be a principal instrument of our salvation.\n\nBut I return to you, Sire. Let not your Majesty be at all moved by those\ngroundless accusations with which our adversaries endeavour to terrify\nyou; as that the sole tendency and design of this new Gospel\u2014for so they\ncall it\u2014is to furnish a pretext for seditions, and to gain impunity for\nall crimes. \u201cFor God is not the author of confusion, but of peace;\u201d(59)\nnor is \u201cthe Son of God,\u201d who came to \u201cdestroy the works of the devil, the\nminister of sin.\u201d(60) And it is unjust to charge us with such motives and\ndesigns, of which we have never given cause for the least suspicion. Is it\nprobable that we are meditating the subversion of kingdoms?\u2014we, who were\nnever heard to utter a factious word, whose lives were ever known to be\npeaceable and honest while we lived under your government, and who, even\nnow in our exile, cease not to pray for all prosperity to attend yourself\nand your kingdom! Is it probable that we are seeking an unlimited license\nto commit crimes with impunity? in whose conduct, though many things may\nbe blamed, yet there is nothing worthy of such severe reproach! Nor have\nwe, by Divine Grace, profited so little in the Gospel, but that our life\nmay be an example to our detractors of chastity, liberality, mercy,\ntemperance, patience, modesty, and every other virtue. It is an undeniable\nfact, that we sincerely fear and worship God, whose name we desire to be\nsanctified both by our life and by our death; and envy itself is\nconstrained to bear testimony to the innocence and civil integrity of some\nof us, who have suffered the punishment of death for that very thing which\nought to be accounted their highest praise. But if the Gospel be made a\npretext for tumults, which has not yet happened in your kingdom; if any\npersons make the liberty of divine grace an excuse for the licentiousness\nof their vices, of whom I have known many,\u2014there are laws and legal\npenalties, by which they may be punished according to their deserts; only\nlet not the Gospel of God be reproached for the crimes of wicked men. You\nhave now, Sire, the virulent iniquity of our calumniators laid before you\nin a sufficient number of instances, that you may not receive their\naccusations with too credulous an ear.\u2014I fear I have gone too much into\nthe detail, as this preface already approaches the size of a full apology;\nwhereas I intended it not to contain our defence, but only to prepare your\nmind to attend to the pleading of our cause; for, though you are now\naverse and alienated from us, and even inflamed against us, we despair not\nof regaining your favour, if you will only once read with calmness and\ncomposure this our confession, which we intend as our defence before your\nMajesty. But, on the contrary, if your ears are so preoccupied with the\nwhispers of the malevolent, as to leave no opportunity for the accused to\nspeak for themselves, and if those outrageous furies, with your\nconnivance, continue to persecute with imprisonments, scourges, tortures,\nconfiscations, and flames, we shall indeed, like sheep destined to the\nslaughter, be reduced to the greatest extremities. Yet shall we in\npatience possess our souls, and wait for the mighty hand of the Lord,\nwhich undoubtedly will in time appear, and show itself armed for the\ndeliverance of the poor from their affliction, and for the punishment of\ntheir despisers, who now exult in such perfect security. May the Lord, the\nKing of kings, establish your throne with righteousness, and your kingdom\nwith equity.\n\nBASIL, _1st August, 1536_.\n\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL SYLLABUS.\n\n\nThe design of the Author in these Christian Institutes is twofold,\nrelating, First, to the knowledge of God, as the way to attain a blessed\nimmortality; and, in connection with and subservience to this, Secondly,\nto the knowledge of ourselves.\n\nIn the prosecution of this design, he strictly follows the method of the\nApostles\u2019 Creed, as being most familiar to all Christians. For as the\nCreed consists of four parts, the first relating to God the Father, the\nsecond to the Son, the third to the Holy Spirit, the fourth to the Church;\nso the Author distributes the whole of this work into Four Books,\ncorresponding respectively to the four parts of the Creed; as will clearly\nappear from the following detail:\u2014\n\nI. The first article of the Creed relates to God the Father, and to the\ncreation, conservation, and government of all things, which are included\nin his omnipotence.\n\nSo the first book is on the knowledge of God, considered as the Creator,\nPreserver, and Governor of the universe at large, and of every thing\ncontained in it. It shows both the nature and tendency of the true\nknowledge of the Creator\u2014that this is not learned in the schools, but that\nevery man from his birth is self\u2010taught it\u2014Yet that the depravity of men\nis so great as to corrupt and extinguish this knowledge, partly by\nignorance, partly by wickedness; so that it neither leads him to glorify\nGod as he ought, nor conducts him to the attainment of happiness\u2014And\nthough this internal knowledge is assisted by all the creatures around,\nwhich serve as a mirror to display the Divine perfections, yet that man\ndoes not profit by it\u2014Therefore, that to those, whom it is God\u2019s will to\nbring to an intimate and saving knowledge of himself, he gives his written\nword; which introduces observations on the sacred Scripture\u2014That he has\ntherein revealed himself; that not the Father only, but the Father, Son,\nand Holy Spirit, united, is the Creator of heaven and earth; whom neither\nthe knowledge innate by nature, nor the very beautiful mirror displayed to\nus in the world, can, in consequence of our depravity, teach us to know so\nas to glorify him. This gives occasion for treating of the revelation of\nGod in the Scripture, of the unity of the Divine Essence, and the trinity\nof Persons.\u2014To prevent man from attributing to God the blame of his own\nvoluntary blindness, the Author shows the state of man at his creation,\nand treats of the image of God, free\u2010will, and the primitive integrity of\nnature.\u2014Having finished the subject of creation, he proceeds to the\nconservation and government of all things, concluding the first book with\na full discussion of the doctrine of divine providence.\n\nII. But since man is fallen by sin from the state in which he was created,\nit is necessary to come to Christ. Therefore it follows in the Creed, \u201cAnd\nin Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord,\u201d &c.\n\nSo in the second book of the Institutes our Author treats of the knowledge\nof God as the Redeemer in Christ; and having shown the fall of man, leads\nhim to Christ the Mediator. Here he states the doctrine of original\nsin\u2014that man possesses no inherent strength to enable him to deliver\nhimself from sin and the impending curse, but that, on the contrary,\nnothing can proceed from him, antecedently to reconciliation and\nrenovation, but what is deserving of condemnation\u2014Therefore, that, man\nbeing utterly lost in himself, and incapable of conceiving even a good\nthought by which he may restore himself, or perform actions acceptable to\nGod, he must seek redemption out of himself, in Christ\u2014That the Law was\ngiven for this purpose, not to confine its observers to itself, but to\nconduct them to Christ; which gives occasion to introduce an exposition of\nthe Moral Law\u2014That he was known, as the Author of salvation, to the Jews\nunder the Law, but more fully under the Gospel, in which he is manifested\nto the world.\u2014Hence follows the doctrine of the similarity and difference\nof the Old and New Testament, of the Law and Gospel.\u2014It is next stated,\nthat, in order to the complete accomplishment of salvation, it was\nnecessary for the eternal Son of God to become man, and that he actually\nassumed a real human nature:\u2014it is also shown how these two natures\nconstitute one person\u2014That the office of Christ, appointed for the\nacquisition and application of complete salvation by his merit and\nefficacy, is sacerdotal, regal, and prophetical.\u2014Next follows the manner\nin which Christ executed his office, or actually performed the part of a\nMediator, being an exposition of the Articles respecting his death,\nresurrection, and ascension to heaven.\u2014Lastly, the Author shows the truth\nand propriety of affirming that Christ merited the grace of God and\nsalvation for us.\n\nIII. As long as Christ is separate from us, he profits us nothing. Hence\nthe necessity of our being ingrafted into him, as branches into a vine.\nTherefore the doctrine concerning Christ is followed, in the third part of\nthe Creed, by this clause, \u201cI believe in the Holy Spirit,\u201d as being the\nbond of union between us and Christ.\n\nSo in the third book our Author treats of the Holy Spirit, who unites us\nto Christ\u2014and consequently of faith, by which we embrace Christ, with his\ntwofold benefit, free righteousness, which he imputes to us, and\nregeneration, which he commences within us, by bestowing repentance upon\nus.\u2014And to show that we have not the least room to glory in such faith as\nis unconnected with the pursuit of repentance, before proceeding to the\nfull discussion of justification, he treats at large of repentance and the\ncontinual exercise of it, which Christ, apprehended by faith, produces in\nus by his Spirit.\u2014He next fully discusses the first and chief benefit of\nChrist when united to us by the Holy Spirit, that is, justification\u2014and\nthen treats of prayer, which resembles the hand that actually receives\nthose blessings to be enjoyed, which faith knows, from the word of\npromise, to be laid up with God for our use.\u2014But as all men are not united\nto Christ, the sole Author of salvation, by the Holy Spirit, who creates\nand preserves faith in us, he treats of God\u2019s eternal election; which is\nthe cause that we, in whom he foresaw no good but what he intended freely\nto bestow, have been favoured with the gift of Christ, and united to God\nby the effectual call of the Gospel.\u2014Lastly, he treats of complete\nregeneration, and the fruition of happiness; that is, the final\nresurrection, towards which our eyes must be directed, since in this world\nthe felicity of the pious, in respect of enjoyment, is only begun.\n\nIV. But as the Holy Spirit does not unite all men to Christ, or make them\npartakers of faith, and on those to whom he imparts it he does not\nordinarily bestow it without means, but employs for this purpose the\npreaching of the Gospel and the use of the sacraments, with the\nadministration of all discipline, therefore it follows in the Creed, \u201cI\nbelieve in the Holy Catholic Church,\u201d whom, though involved in eternal\ndeath, yet, in pursuance of the gratuitous election, God has freely\nreconciled to himself in Christ, and made partakers of the Holy Spirit,\nthat, being ingrafted into Christ, they may have communion with him as\ntheir head, whence flows a perpetual remission of sins, and a full\nrestoration to eternal life.\n\nSo in the fourth book our Author treats of the Church\u2014then of the means\nused by the Holy Spirit in effectually calling from spiritual death, and\npreserving the church\u2014the word and sacraments\u2014baptism and the Lord\u2019s\nsupper\u2014which are as it were Christ\u2019s regal sceptre, by which he commences\nhis spiritual reign in the Church by the energy of his Spirit, and carries\nit forwards from day to day during the present life, after the close of\nwhich he perfects it without those means.\n\nAnd as political institutions are the asylums of the Church in this life,\nthough civil government is distinct from the spiritual kingdom of Christ,\nour Author instructs us respecting it as a signal blessing of God, which\nthe Church ought to acknowledge with gratitude of heart, till we are\ncalled out of this transitory state to the heavenly inheritance, where God\nwill be all in all.\n\nThis is the plan of the Institutes, which may be comprised in the\nfollowing brief summary:\u2014\n\nMan, created originally upright, being afterwards ruined, not partially,\nbut totally, finds salvation out of himself, wholly in Christ; to whom\nbeing united by the Holy Spirit, freely bestowed, without any regard of\nfuture works, he enjoys in him a twofold benefit, the perfect imputation\nof righteousness, which attends him to the grave, and the commencement of\nsanctification, which he daily increases, till at length he completes it\nat the day of regeneration or resurrection of the body, so that in eternal\nlife and the heavenly inheritance his praises are celebrated for such\nstupendous mercy.\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I. ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.\n\n\n\n\nArgument.\n\n\nThe first book treats of the knowledge of God the Creator; but, this being\nchiefly manifested in the creation of man, man also is made the subject of\ndiscussion. Thus the principal topics of the whole treatise are two\u2014the\nknowledge of God, and the knowledge of man. In the first chapter, they are\nconsidered together; in the following chapters, separately; yet some\nthings are introduced, which may be referred to either or both. What\nrespects the Scripture and images may belong to the knowledge of God; what\nrespects the formation of the world, the holy angels, and the devils, to\nthe knowledge of man; and what respects the manner in which God governs\nthe world, to both.\n\nOn the first of these topics, the knowledge of God, this book shows,\n\nFirst, What kind of knowledge God himself requires\u2014Chap. II.\n\nSecondly, Where it must be sought\u2014Chap. III.\u2010IX., as follows:\n\n1. Not in man; because, though the human mind is naturally endued with it,\nyet it is extinguished, partly by ignorance, partly by wickedness\u2014Chap.\nIII. IV.\n\n2. Nor in the structure of the world; because, though it shines there with\nthe brightest evidence, testimonies of that kind, however plain, are,\nthrough our stupidity, wholly useless to us\u2014Chap. V.\n\n3. But in the Scripture\u2014Chap. VI.\u2010IX.\n\nThirdly, What kind of a being God is\u2014Chap. X.\n\nFourthly, The impiety of ascribing to God a visible form, with\nobservations on the adoration and origin of images\u2014Chap. XI.\n\nFifthly, The reasonableness that God alone should be supremely\nworshipped\u2014Chap. XII.\n\nLastly, The unity of the Divine Essence, and the distinction of three\nPersons\u2014Chap. XIII.\n\nOn the other of these topics, the knowledge of man, it contains,\n\nFirst, A dissertation on the creation of the world, and on the good and\nevil angels, all which relate to man\u2014Chap. XIV.\n\nSecondly, Proceeding to man himself, an examination of his nature and\npowers\u2014Chap. XV.\n\nBut, in order to a clearer illustration of the knowledge of God and man,\nthe three remaining chapters treat of the government of all human actions\nand of the whole world, in opposition to fortune and fate, stating the\npure doctrine, and showing its use; and conclude with proving that, though\nGod uses the agency of the wicked, he is pure from all pollution, and\nchargeable with no blame.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. The Connection Between The Knowledge Of God And The Knowledge\nOf Ourselves.\n\n\nTrue and substantial wisdom principally consists of two parts, the\nknowledge of God, and the knowledge of ourselves. But, while these two\nbranches of knowledge are so intimately connected, which of them precedes\nand produces the other, is not easy to discover. For, in the first place,\nno man can take a survey of himself but he must immediately turn to the\ncontemplation of God, in whom he \u201clives and moves;\u201d(61) since it is\nevident that the talents which we possess are not from ourselves, and that\nour very existence is nothing but a subsistence in God alone. These\nbounties, distilling to us by drops from heaven, form, as it were, so many\nstreams conducting us to the fountain\u2010head. Our poverty conduces to a\nclearer display of the infinite fulness of God. Especially, the miserable\nruin, into which we have been plunged by the defection of the first man,\ncompels us to raise our eyes towards heaven, not only as hungry and\nfamished, to seek thence a supply for our wants, but, aroused with fear,\nto learn humility. For, since man is subject to a world of miseries, and\nhas been spoiled of his divine array, this melancholy exposure discovers\nan immense mass of deformity: every one, therefore, must be so impressed\nwith a consciousness of his own infelicity, as to arrive at some knowledge\nof God. Thus a sense of our ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity,\ndepravity, and corruption, leads us to perceive and acknowledge that in\nthe Lord alone are to be found true wisdom, solid strength, perfect\ngoodness, and unspotted righteousness; and so, by our imperfections, we\nare excited to a consideration of the perfections of God. Nor can we\nreally aspire toward him, till we have begun to be displeased with\nourselves. For who would not gladly rest satisfied with himself? where is\nthe man not actually absorbed in self\u2010complacency, while he remains\nunacquainted with his true situation, or content with his own endowments,\nand ignorant or forgetful of his own misery? The knowledge of ourselves,\ntherefore, is not only an incitement to seek after God, but likewise a\nconsiderable assistance towards finding him.\n\nII. On the other hand, it is plain that no man can arrive at the true\nknowledge of himself, without having first contemplated the divine\ncharacter, and then descended to the consideration of his own. For, such\nis the native pride of us all, we invariably esteem ourselves righteous,\ninnocent, wise, and holy, till we are convinced, by clear proofs, of our\nunrighteousness, turpitude, folly, and impurity. But we are never thus\nconvinced, while we confine our attention to ourselves, and regard not the\nLord, who is the only standard by which this judgment ought to be formed.\nBecause, from our natural proneness to hypocrisy, any vain appearance of\nrighteousness abundantly contents us instead of the reality; and, every\nthing within and around us being exceedingly defiled, we are delighted\nwith what is least so, as extremely pure, while we confine our reflections\nwithin the limits of human corruption. So the eye, accustomed to see\nnothing but black, judges that to be very white, which is but whitish, or\nperhaps brown. Indeed, the senses of our bodies may assist us in\ndiscovering how grossly we err in estimating the powers of the soul. For\nif at noon\u2010day we look either on the ground, or at any surrounding\nobjects, we conclude our vision to be very strong and piercing; but when\nwe raise our eyes and steadily look at the sun, they are at once dazzled\nand confounded with such a blaze of brightness, and we are constrained to\nconfess, that our sight, so piercing in viewing terrestrial things, when\ndirected to the sun, is dimness itself. Thus also it happens in the\nconsideration of our spiritual endowments. For as long as our views are\nbounded by the earth, perfectly content with our own righteousness,\nwisdom, and strength, we fondly flatter ourselves, and fancy we are little\nless than demigods. But, if we once elevate our thoughts to God, and\nconsider his nature, and the consummate perfection of his righteousness,\nwisdom, and strength, to which we ought to be conformed,\u2014what before\ncharmed us in ourselves under the false pretext of righteousness, will\nsoon be loathed as the greatest iniquity; what strangely deceived us under\nthe title of wisdom, will be despised as extreme folly; and what wore the\nappearance of strength, will be proved to be most wretched impotence. So\nvery remote from the divine purity is what seems in us the highest\nperfection.\n\nIII. Hence that horror and amazement with which the Scripture always\nrepresents the saints to have been impressed and disturbed, on every\ndiscovery of the presence of God. For when we see those, who before his\nappearance stood secure and firm, so astonished and affrighted at the\nmanifestation of his glory, as to faint and almost expire through fear,\u2014we\nmust infer that man is never sufficiently affected with a knowledge of his\nown meanness, till he has compared himself with the Divine Majesty. Of\nthis consternation we have frequent examples in the Judges and Prophets;\nso that it was a common expression among the Lord\u2019s people\u2014\u201cWe shall die,\nbecause we have seen God.\u201d(62) Therefore the history of Job, to humble men\nwith a consciousness of their pollution, impotence, and folly, derives its\nprincipal argument from a description of the Divine purity, power, and\nwisdom. And not without reason. For we see how Abraham, the nearer he\napproached to behold the glory of the Lord, the more fully acknowledged\nhimself to be but \u201cdust and ashes;\u201d(63) and how Elias(64) could not bear\nhis approach without covering his face, his appearance is so formidable.\nAnd what can man do, all vile and corrupt, when fear constrains even the\ncherubim themselves to veil their faces? This is what the prophet Isaiah\nspeaks of\u2014\u201cthe moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the\nLord of hosts shall reign:\u201d(65) that is, when he shall make a fuller and\nnearer exhibition of his splendour, it shall eclipse the splendour of the\nbrightest object besides. But, though the knowledge of God and the\nknowledge of ourselves be intimately connected, the proper order of\ninstruction requires us first to treat of the former, and then to proceed\nto the discussion of the latter.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. The Nature And Tendency Of The Knowledge Of God.\n\n\nBy the knowledge of God, I intend not merely a notion that there is such a\nBeing, but also an acquaintance with whatever we ought to know concerning\nHim, conducing to his glory and our benefit. For we cannot with propriety\nsay, there is any knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety. I\nhave no reference here to that species of knowledge by which men, lost and\ncondemned in themselves, apprehend God the Redeemer in Christ the\nMediator; but only to that first and simple knowledge, to which the\ngenuine order of nature would lead us, if Adam had retained his innocence.\nFor though, in the present ruined state of human nature, no man will ever\nperceive God to be a Father, or the Author of salvation, or in any respect\npropitious, but as pacified by the mediation of Christ; yet it is one\nthing to understand, that God our Maker supports us by his power, governs\nus by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and follows us with\nblessings of every kind, and another to embrace the grace of\nreconciliation proposed to us in Christ. Therefore, since God is first\nmanifested, both in the structure of the world and in the general tenor of\nScripture, simply as the Creator, and afterwards reveals himself in the\nperson of Christ as a Redeemer, hence arises a twofold knowledge of him;\nof which the former is first to be considered, and the other will follow\nin its proper place. For though our mind cannot conceive of God, without\nascribing some worship to him, it will not be sufficient merely to\napprehend that he is the only proper object of universal worship and\nadoration, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of all\ngood, and seek for none but in him. This I maintain, not only because he\nsustains the universe, as he once made it, by his infinite power, governs\nit by his wisdom, preserves it by his goodness, and especially reigns over\nthe human race in righteousness and judgment, exercising a merciful\nforbearance, and defending them by his protection; but because there\ncannot be found the least particle of wisdom, light, righteousness, power,\nrectitude, or sincere truth which does not proceed from him, and claim him\nfor its author: we should therefore learn to expect and supplicate all\nthese things from him, and thankfully to acknowledge what he gives us. For\nthis sense of the divine perfections is calculated to teach us piety,\nwhich produces religion. By piety, I mean a reverence and love of God,\narising from a knowledge of his benefits. For, till men are sensible that\nthey owe every thing to God, that they are supported by his paternal care,\nthat he is the Author of all the blessings they enjoy, and that nothing\nshould be sought independently of him, they will never voluntarily submit\nto his authority; they will never truly and cordially devote themselves to\nhis service, unless they rely upon him alone for true felicity.\n\nII. Cold and frivolous, then, are the speculations of those who employ\nthemselves in disquisitions on the essence of God, when it would be more\ninteresting to us to become acquainted with his character, and to know\nwhat is agreeable to his nature. For what end is answered by professing,\nwith Epicurus, that there is a God, who, discarding all concern about the\nworld, indulges himself in perpetual inactivity? What benefit arises from\nthe knowledge of a God with whom we have no concern? Our knowledge of God\nshould rather tend, first, to teach us fear and reverence; and, secondly,\nto instruct us to implore all good at his hand, and to render him the\npraise of all that we receive. For how can you entertain a thought of God\nwithout immediately reflecting, that, being a creature of his formation,\nyou must, by right of creation, be subject to his authority? that you are\nindebted to him for your life, and that all your actions should be done\nwith reference to him? If this be true, it certainly follows that your\nlife is miserably corrupt, unless it be regulated by a desire of obeying\nhim, since his will ought to be the rule of our conduct. Nor can you have\na clear view of him without discovering him to be the fountain and origin\nof all good. This would produce a desire of union to him, and confidence\nin him, if the human mind were not seduced by its own depravity from the\nright path of investigation. For, even at the first, the pious mind dreams\nnot of any imaginary deity, but contemplates only the one true God; and,\nconcerning him, indulges not the fictions of fancy, but, content with\nbelieving him to be such as he reveals himself, uses the most diligent and\nunremitting caution, lest it should fall into error by a rash and\npresumptuous transgression of his will. He who thus knows him, sensible\nthat all things are subject to his control, confides in him as his\nGuardian and Protector, and unreservedly commits himself to his care.\nAssured that he is the author of all blessings, in distress or want he\nimmediately flies to his protection, and expects his aid. Persuaded of his\ngoodness and mercy, he relies on him with unlimited confidence, nor doubts\nof finding in his clemency a remedy provided for all his evils. Knowing\nhim to be his Lord and Father, he concludes that he ought to mark his\ngovernment in all things, revere his majesty, endeavour to promote his\nglory, and obey his commands. Perceiving him to be a just Judge, armed\nwith severity for the punishment of crimes, he keeps his tribunal always\nin view, and is restrained by fear from provoking his wrath. Yet he is not\nso terrified at the apprehension of his justice, as to wish to evade it,\neven if escape were possible; but loves him as much in punishing the\nwicked as in blessing the pious, because he believes it as necessary to\nhis glory to punish the impious and abandoned, as to reward the righteous\nwith eternal life. Besides, he restrains himself from sin, not merely from\na dread of vengeance, but because he loves and reveres God as his Father,\nhonours and worships him as his Lord, and, even though there were no hell,\nwould shudder at the thought of offending him. See, then, the nature of\npure and genuine religion. It consists in faith, united with a serious\nfear of God, comprehending a voluntary reverence, and producing legitimate\nworship agreeable to the injunctions of the law. And this requires to be\nthe more carefully remarked, because men in general render to God a formal\nworship, but very few truly reverence him; while great ostentation in\nceremonies is universally displayed, but sincerity of heart is rarely to\nbe found.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. The Human Mind Naturally Endued With The Knowledge Of God.\n\n\nWe lay it down as a position not to be controverted, that the human mind,\neven by natural instinct, possesses some sense of a Deity. For that no man\nmight shelter himself under the pretext of ignorance, God hath given to\nall some apprehension of his existence,(66) the memory of which he\nfrequently and insensibly renews; so that, as men universally know that\nthere is a God, and that he is their Maker, they must be condemned by\ntheir own testimony, for not having worshipped him and consecrated their\nlives to his service. If we seek for ignorance of a Deity, it is nowhere\nmore likely to be found, than among tribes the most stupid and furthest\nfrom civilization. But, as the celebrated Cicero observes, there is no\nnation so barbarous, no race so savage, as not to be firmly persuaded of\nthe being of a God.(67) Even those who in other respects appear to differ\nbut little from brutes, always retain some sense of religion; so fully are\nthe minds of men possessed with this common principle, which is closely\ninterwoven with their original composition. Now, since there has never\nbeen a country or family, from the beginning of the world, totally\ndestitute of religion, it is a tacit confession, that some sense of the\nDivinity is inscribed on every heart. Of this opinion, idolatry itself\nfurnishes ample proof. For we know how reluctantly man would degrade\nhimself to exalt other creatures above him. His preference of worshipping\na piece of wood or stone, to being thought to have no god, evinces the\nimpression of a Deity on the human mind to be very strong, the\nobliteration of which is more difficult than a total change of the natural\ndisposition; and this is certainly changed, whenever man leaves his\nnatural pride, and voluntarily descends to such meannesses under the\nnotion of worshipping God.\n\nII. It is most absurd, then, to pretend, as is asserted by some, that\nreligion was the contrivance of a few subtle and designing men, a\npolitical machine to confine the simple multitude to their duty, while\nthose who inculcated the worship of God on others, were themselves far\nfrom believing that any god existed. I confess, indeed, that artful men\nhave introduced many inventions into religion, to fill the vulgar with\nreverence, and strike them with terror, in order to obtain the greater\ncommand over their minds. But this they never could have accomplished, if\nthe minds of men had not previously been possessed of a firm persuasion of\nthe existence of God, from which the propensity to religion proceeds. And\nthat they who cunningly imposed on the illiterate, under the pretext of\nreligion, were themselves wholly destitute of any knowledge of God, is\nquite incredible. For though there were some in ancient times, and many\narise in the present age, who deny the existence of God, yet, in spite of\ntheir reluctance, they are continually receiving proofs of what they\ndesire to disbelieve. We read of no one guilty of more audacious or\nunbridled contempt of the Deity than Caligula; yet no man ever trembled\nwith greater distress at any instance of Divine wrath, so that he was\nconstrained to dread the Divinity whom he professed to despise. This you\nmay always see exemplified in persons of similar character. For the most\naudacious contemners of God are most alarmed, even at the noise of a\nfalling leaf. Whence arises this, but from the vengeance of the Divine\nMajesty, smiting their consciences the more powerfully in proportion to\ntheir efforts to fly from it? They try every refuge to hide themselves\nfrom the Lord\u2019s presence, and to efface it from their minds; but their\nattempts to elude it are all in vain. Though it may seem to disappear for\na moment, it presently returns with increased violence; so that, if they\nhave any remission of the anguish of conscience, it resembles the sleep of\npersons intoxicated, or subject to frenzy, who enjoy no placid rest while\nsleeping, being continually harassed with horrible and tremendous dreams.\nThe impious themselves, therefore, exemplify the observation, that the\nidea of a God is never lost in the human mind.\n\nIII. It will always be evident to persons of correct judgment, that the\nidea of a Deity impressed on the mind of man is indelible. That all have\nby nature an innate persuasion of the Divine existence, a persuasion\ninseparable from their very constitution, we have abundant evidence in the\ncontumacy of the wicked, whose furious struggles to extricate themselves\nfrom the fear of God are unavailing. Though Diagoras, and others like him,\nturn to ridicule what all ages have believed of religion;(68) though\nDionysius scoff at the judgment of Heaven,\u2014it is but a forced laughter,\nfor the worm of a guilty conscience torments them within, worse than if\nthey were seared with hot irons. I agree not with Cicero, that errors in\nprocess of time become obsolete, and that religion is increased and\nameliorated daily. For the world, as will shortly be observed, uses its\nutmost endeavours to banish all knowledge of God, and tries every method\nof corrupting his worship. I only maintain, that while the stupid\ninsensibility which the wicked wish to acquire, to promote their contempt\nof God, preys upon their minds, yet the sense of a Deity, which they\nardently desire to extinguish, is still strong, and frequently discovers\nitself. Whence we infer, that this is a doctrine, not first to be learned\nin the schools, but which every man from his birth is self\u2010taught, and\nwhich, though many strain every nerve to banish it from them, yet nature\nitself permits none to forget. Now, if the end for which all men are born\nand live, be to know God,\u2014and unless the knowledge of God have reached\nthis point, it is uncertain and vain,\u2014it is evident, that all who direct\nnot every thought and action of life to this end, are degenerated from the\nlaw of their creation. Of this the heathen philosophers themselves were\nnot ignorant. This was Plato\u2019s meaning, when he taught that the chief good\nof the soul consists in similitude to God, when the soul, having a clear\nknowledge of him, is wholly transformed into his likeness.(69) The\nreasoning also of Gryllus, in Plutarch, is very accurate, when he affirms,\nthat men entirely destitute of religion, not only do not excel the brutes,\nbut are in many respects far more wretched, being obnoxious to evil under\nso many forms, and always dragging on a tumultuous and restless life. The\nworship of God is therefore the only thing which renders men superior to\nbrutes, and makes them aspire to immortality.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. This Knowledge Extinguished Or Corrupted, Partly By Ignorance,\nPartly By Wickedness.\n\n\nWhile experience testifies that the seeds of religion are sown by God in\nevery heart, we scarcely find one man in a hundred who cherishes what he\nhas received, and not one in whom they grow to maturity, much less bear\nfruit in due season. Some perhaps grow vain in their own superstitions,\nwhile others revolt from God with intentional wickedness; but all\ndegenerate from the true knowledge of him. The fact is, that no genuine\npiety remains in the world. But, in saying that some fall into\nsuperstition through error, I would not insinuate that their ignorance\nexcuses them from guilt; because their blindness is always connected with\npride, vanity, and contumacy. Pride and vanity are discovered, when\nmiserable men, in seeking after God, rise not, as they ought, above their\nown level, but judge of him according to their carnal stupidity, and leave\nthe proper path of investigation in pursuit of speculations as vain as\nthey are curious. Their conceptions of him are formed, not according to\nthe representations he gives of himself, but by the inventions of their\nown presumptuous imaginations. This gulf being opened, whatever course\nthey take, they must be rushing forwards to destruction. None of their\nsubsequent attempts for the worship or service of God can be considered as\nrendered to him; because they worship not him, but a figment of their own\nbrains in his stead. This depravity Paul expressly remarks: \u201cProfessing\nthemselves to be wise, they became fools.\u201d(70) He had before said, \u201cthey\nbecame vain in their imaginations.\u201d But lest any should exculpate them, he\nadds that they were deservedly blinded, because, not content within the\nbounds of sobriety, but arrogating to themselves more than was right, they\nwilfully darkened, and even infatuated themselves with pride, vanity, and\nperverseness. Whence it follows, that their folly is inexcusable, which\noriginates not only in a vain curiosity, but in false confidence, and an\nimmoderate desire to exceed the limits of human knowledge.\n\nII. David\u2019s assertion, that \u201cthe fool hath said in his heart, There is no\nGod,\u201d(71) is primarily, as we shall soon see in another place, to be\nrestricted to those who extinguish the light of nature, and wilfully\nstupefy themselves. For we see many, become hardened by bold and habitual\ntransgressions, striving to banish all remembrance of God, which the\ninstinct of nature is still suggesting to their minds. To render their\nmadness more detestable, he introduces them as expressly denying the\nexistence of God; not that they deprive him of his being, but because they\nrob him of his justice and providence, shutting him up as an idler in\nheaven. Now, as nothing would be more inconsistent with Deity, than to\nabandon the government of the world, leave it to fortune, and connive at\nthe crimes of men, that they might wanton with impunity,\u2014whoever\nextinguishes all fear of the heavenly judgment, and indulges himself in\nsecurity, denies that there is any God. After the impious have wilfully\nshut their own eyes, it is the righteous vengeance of God upon them, to\ndarken their understandings, so that, seeing, they may not perceive.(72)\nDavid is the best interpreter of his own meaning, in another place, where\nhe says, \u201cThe wicked have no fear of God before their eyes;\u201d(73) and\nagain, that they encourage themselves in their iniquities with the\nflattering persuasion that God doth not see them.(74) Though they are\nconstrained to acknowledge the existence of God, yet they rob him of his\nglory, by detracting from his power. For as God, according to the\ntestimony of Paul, \u201ccannot deny himself,\u201d(75) because he perpetually\nremains like himself,\u2014those who feign him to be a vain and lifeless image,\nare truly said to deny God. It must also be remarked, that, though they\nstrive against their own natural understanding, and desire not only to\nbanish him thence, but even to annihilate him in heaven, their\ninsensibility can never prevail, so as to prevent God from sometimes\nrecalling them to his tribunal. But as no dread restrains them from\nviolent opposition to the divine will, it is evident, as long as they are\ncarried away with such a blind impetuosity, that they are governed by a\nbrutish forgetfulness of God.\n\nIII. Thus is overthrown the vain excuse pleaded by many for their\nsuperstition; for they satisfy themselves with any attention to religion,\nhowever preposterous, not considering that the Divine Will is the\nperpetual rule to which true religion ought to be conformed; that God ever\ncontinues like himself; that he is no spectre or phantasm, to be\nmetamorphosed according to the fancy of every individual. It is easy to\nsee how superstition mocks God with hypocritical services, while it\nattempts to please him. For, embracing only those things which he declares\nhe disregards, it either contemptuously practises, or even openly rejects,\nwhat he prescribes and declares to be pleasing in his sight. Persons who\nintroduce newly\u2010invented methods of worshipping God, really worship and\nadore the creature of their distempered imaginations; for they would never\nhave dared to trifle in such a manner with God, if they had not first\nfeigned a god conformable to their own false and foolish notions.\nWherefore the apostle pronounces a vague and unsettled notion concerning\nthe Deity to be ignorance of God. \u201cWhen ye knew not God, (says he,) ye did\nservice unto them which by nature were no gods.\u201d(76) And in another place\nhe speaks of the Ephesians as having been \u201cwithout God,\u201d(77) while they\nwere strangers to a right knowledge of the only true God. Nor, in this\nrespect, is it of much importance, whether you imagine to yourself one god\nor more; for in either case you depart and revolt from the true God, and,\nforsaking him, you have nothing left you but an execrable idol. We must\ntherefore decide, with Lactantius, that there is no legitimate religion\nunconnected with truth.\n\nIV. Another sin is, that they never think of God but against their\ninclinations, nor approach him till their reluctance is overcome by\nconstraint; and then they are influenced, not by a voluntary fear,\nproceeding from reverence of the Divine Majesty, but by a servile and\nconstrained fear, extorted by the divine judgment, which they dread\nbecause it is inevitable, at the same time that they hate it. Now, to\nimpiety, and to this species of it alone, is applicable that assertion of\nStatius, that fear first made gods in the world.(78) They, whose minds are\nalienated from the righteousness of God, earnestly desire the subversion\nof that tribunal, which they know to be established for the punishment of\ntransgressions against it. With this disposition, they wage war against\nthe Lord, who cannot be deprived of his judgment; but when they apprehend\nhis irresistible arm to be impending over their heads, unable to avert or\nevade it, they tremble with fear. That they may not seem altogether to\ndespise him, whose majesty troubles them, they practise some form of\nreligion; at the same time not ceasing to pollute themselves with vices of\nevery kind, and to add one flagitious act to another, till they have\nviolated every part of God\u2019s holy law, and dissipated all its\nrighteousness. It is certain, at least, that they are not prevented by\nthat pretended fear of God from enjoying pleasure and satisfaction in\ntheir sins, practising self\u2010adulation, and preferring the indulgence of\ntheir own carnal intemperance to the salutary restraints of the Holy\nSpirit. But that being a false and vain shadow of religion, and scarcely\nworthy even to be called its shadow,\u2014it is easy to infer the wide\ndifference between such a confused notion of God, and the piety which is\ninstilled only into the minds of the faithful, and is the source of\nreligion. Yet hypocrites, who are flying from God, resort to the artifices\nof superstition, for the sake of appearing devoted to him. For whereas the\nwhole tenor of their life ought to be a perpetual course of obedience to\nhim, they make no scruple of rebelling against him in almost all their\nactions, only endeavouring to appease him with a few paltry sacrifices.\nWhereas he ought to be served with sanctity of life and integrity of\nheart, they invent frivolous trifles and worthless observances, to\nconciliate his favour. They abandon themselves to their impurities with\nthe greater licentiousness, because they confide in being able to\ndischarge all their duty to him by ridiculous expiations. In a word,\nwhereas their confidence ought to be placed on him, they neglect him, and\ndepend upon themselves or on other creatures. At length they involve\nthemselves in such a vast accumulation of errors, that those sparks which\nenable them to discover the glory of God are smothered, and at last\nextinguished by the criminal darkness of iniquity. That seed, which it is\nimpossible to eradicate, a sense of the existence of a Deity, yet remains;\nbut so corrupted as to produce only the worst of fruits. Yet this is a\nfurther proof of what I now contend for, that an idea of God is naturally\nengraved on the hearts of men, since necessity extorts a confession of it,\neven from reprobates themselves. In the moment of tranquillity, they\nfacetiously mock the Divine Being, and with loquacious impertinence\nderogate from his power. But if any despair oppress them, it stimulates\nthem to seek him, and dictates concise prayers, which prove that they are\nnot altogether ignorant of God, but that what ought to have appeared\nbefore had been suppressed by obstinacy.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V. The Knowledge Of God Conspicuous In The Formation And Continual\nGovernment Of The World.\n\n\nAs the perfection of a happy life consists in the knowledge of God, that\nno man might be precluded from attaining felicity, God hath not only sown\nin the minds of men the seed of religion, already mentioned, but hath\nmanifested himself in the formation of every part of the world, and daily\npresents himself to public view, in such a manner, that they cannot open\ntheir eyes without being constrained to behold him. His essence indeed is\nincomprehensible, so that his Majesty is not to be perceived by the human\nsenses; but on all his works he hath inscribed his glory in characters so\nclear, unequivocal, and striking, that the most illiterate and stupid\ncannot exculpate themselves by the plea of ignorance. The Psalmist\ntherefore, with great propriety, exclaims, \u201cHe covereth himself with light\nas with a garment;\u201d(79) as if he had said, that his first appearance in\nvisible apparel was at the creation of the world, when he displayed those\nglories which are still conspicuous on every side. In the same place, the\nPsalmist compares the expanded heavens to a royal pavilion;\u2014he says that\n\u201che layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters; maketh the clouds his\nchariot; walketh upon the wings of the wind;\u201d and maketh the winds and the\nlightnings his swift messengers. And because the glory of his power and\nwisdom is more refulgently displayed above, heaven is generally called his\npalace. And, in the first place, whithersoever you turn your eyes, there\nis not an atom of the world in which you cannot behold some brilliant\nsparks at least of his glory. But you cannot at one view take a survey of\nthis most ample and beautiful machine in all its vast extent, without\nbeing completely overwhelmed with its infinite splendour. Wherefore the\nauthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews elegantly represents the worlds as\nthe manifestations of invisible things;(80) for the exact symmetry of the\nuniverse is a mirror, in which we may contemplate the otherwise invisible\nGod. For which reason the Psalmist(81) attributes to the celestial bodies\na language universally known; for they afford a testimony of the Deity too\nevident to escape the observation even of the most ignorant people in the\nworld. But the Apostle more distinctly asserts this manifestation to men\nof what was useful to be known concerning God; \u201cfor the invisible things\nof him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood\nby the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead.\u201d(82)\n\nII. Of his wonderful wisdom, both heaven and earth contain innumerable\nproofs; not only those more abstruse things, which are the subjects of\nastronomy, medicine, and the whole science of physics, but those things\nwhich force themselves on the view of the most illiterate of mankind, so\nthat they cannot open their eyes without being constrained to witness\nthem. Adepts, indeed, in those liberal arts, or persons just initiated\ninto them, are thereby enabled to proceed much further in investigating\nthe secrets of Divine Wisdom. Yet ignorance of those sciences prevents no\nman from such a survey of the workmanship of God, as is more than\nsufficient to excite his admiration of the Divine Architect. In\ndisquisitions concerning the motions of the stars, in fixing their\nsituations, measuring their distances, and distinguishing their peculiar\nproperties, there is need of skill, exactness, and industry; and the\nprovidence of God being more clearly revealed by these discoveries, the\nmind ought to rise to a sublimer elevation for the contemplation of his\nglory. But since the meanest and most illiterate of mankind, who are\nfurnished with no other assistance than their own eyes, cannot be ignorant\nof the excellence of the Divine skill, exhibiting itself in that endless,\nyet regular variety of the innumerable celestial host,\u2014it is evident, that\nthe Lord abundantly manifests his wisdom to every individual on earth.\nThus it belongs to a man of pre\u00ebminent ingenuity to examine, with the\ncritical exactness of Galen, the connection, the symmetry, the beauty, and\nthe use of the various parts of the human body. But the composition of the\nhuman body is universally acknowledged to be so ingenious, as to render\nits Maker the object of deserved admiration.\n\nIII. And therefore some of the philosophers(83) of antiquity have justly\ncalled man a microcosm, or world in miniature; because he is an eminent\nspecimen of the power, goodness, and wisdom of God, and contains in him\nwonders enough to occupy the attention of our minds, if we are not\nindisposed to such a study. For this reason, Paul, having remarked that\nthe blind \u201cmight feel after God and find him,\u201d immediately adds, that \u201che\nis not far from every one of us;\u201d(84) because every man has undoubtedly an\ninward perception of the celestial goodness, by which he is quickened. But\nif, to attain some ideas of God, it be not necessary for us to go beyond\nourselves, what an unpardonable indolence is it in those who will not\ndescend into themselves that they may find him! For the same reason,\nDavid, having briefly celebrated the wonderful name and honour of God,\nwhich are universally conspicuous, immediately exclaims, \u201cWhat is man,\nthat thou art mindful of him?\u201d(85) Again, \u201cOut of the mouths of babes and\nsucklings thou hast ordained strength.\u201d Thus declaring not only that the\nhuman race is a clear mirror of the works of God, but that even infants at\nthe breast have tongues so eloquent for the publication of his glory, that\nthere is no necessity for other orators; whence he hesitates not to\nproduce them as fully capable of confuting the madness of those whose\ndiabolical pride would wish to extinguish the name of God. Hence also what\nPaul quotes from Aratus, that \u201cwe are the offspring of God;\u201d(86) since his\nadorning us with such great excellence has proved him to be our Father.\nSo, from the dictates of common sense and experience, the heathen poets\ncalled him the Father of men. Nor will any man freely devote himself to\nthe service of God, unless he have been allured to love and reverence him,\nby first experiencing his paternal love.\n\nIV. But herein appears the vile ingratitude of men\u2014that, while they ought\nto be proclaiming the praises of God for the wonderful skill displayed in\ntheir formation, and the inestimable bounties he bestows on them, they are\nonly inflated with the greater pride. They perceive how wonderfully God\nworks within them, and experience teaches them what a variety of blessings\nthey receive from his liberality. They are constrained to know, whether\nwillingly or not, that these are proofs of his divinity: yet they suppress\nthis knowledge in their hearts. Indeed, they need not go out of\nthemselves, provided they do not, by arrogating to themselves what is\ngiven from heaven, smother the light which illuminates their minds to a\nclearer discovery of God. Even in the present day, there are many men of\nmonstrous dispositions, who hesitate not to pervert all the seeds of\ndivinity sown in the nature of man, in order to bury in oblivion the name\nof God. How detestable is this frenzy, that man, discovering in his body\nand soul a hundred vestiges of God, should make this very excellence a\npretext for the denial of his being! They will not say that they are\ndistinguished from the brutes by chance; but they ascribe it to nature,\nwhich they consider as the author of all things, and remove God out of\nsight. They perceive most exquisite workmanship in all their members, from\nthe head to the feet. Here also they substitute nature in the place of\nGod. But above all, the rapid motions of the soul, its noble faculties,\nand excellent talents, discover a Divinity not easily concealed; unless\nthe Epicureans, like the Cyclops, from this eminence should audaciously\nwage war against God. Do all the treasures of heavenly wisdom concur in\nthe government of a worm five feet in length? and shall the universe be\ndestitute of this privilege? To state that there is in the soul a certain\nmachinery corresponding to every part of the body, is so far from\nobscuring the divine glory, that it is rather an illustration of it. Let\nEpicurus answer; what concourse of atoms in the concoction of food and\ndrink distributes part into excrements and part into blood, and causes the\nseveral members to perform their different offices with as much diligence\nas if so many souls by common consent governed one body?\n\nV. But my present concern is not with that sty of swines: I rather address\nthose who, influenced by preposterous subtilties, would indirectly employ\nthat frigid dogma of Aristotle to destroy the immortality of the soul, and\ndeprive God of his rights. For, because the organs of the body are\ndirected by the faculties of the soul, they pretend the soul to be so\nunited to the body as to be incapable of subsisting without it; and by\ntheir eulogies of nature do all they can to suppress the name of God. But\nthe powers of the soul are far from being limited to functions subservient\nto the body. For what concern has the body in measuring the heavens,\ncounting the number of the stars, computing their several magnitudes, and\nacquiring a knowledge of their respective distances, of the celerity or\ntardiness of their courses, and of the degrees of their various\ndeclinations? I grant, indeed, the usefulness of astronomy, but only\nremark that, in these profound researches relating to the celestial orbs,\nthere is no corporeal co\u00f6peration, but that the soul has its functions\ndistinct from the body. I have proposed one example, whence inferences may\nreadily be drawn by the readers. The manifold agility of the soul, which\nenables it to take a survey of heaven and earth; to join the past and the\npresent; to retain the memory of things heard long ago; to conceive of\nwhatever it chooses by the help of imagination; its ingenuity also in the\ninvention of such admirable arts,\u2014are certain proofs of the divinity in\nman. Besides, in sleep, it not only turns and moves itself round, but\nconceives many useful ideas, reasons on various subjects, and even divines\nfuture events. What shall we say, but that the vestiges of immortality\nimpressed upon man are absolutely indelible? Now, what reason can be\ngiven, why man, who is of divine original, should not acknowledge his\nCreator? Shall we indeed, by the judgment with which we are endued,\ndiscern right from wrong, and shall there be no judge in heaven? Shall we,\neven in our sleep, have some remains of intelligence, and shall there be\nno God to govern the world? Shall we be esteemed the inventers of so many\nuseful arts, that God may be defrauded of his praise? Whereas experience\nabundantly teaches, that all we have is variously distributed to us by\nsome superior Being. The clamour of some, about a secret inspiration\nanimating the whole world, is not only weak, but altogether profane. They\nare pleased with the celebrated passage of Virgil\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cKnow, first, a spirit, with an active flame,\n    Fills, feeds, and animates this mighty frame;\n    Runs through the watery worlds, the fields of air,\n    The ponderous earth, the depths of heaven; and there\n    Glows in the sun and moon, and burns in every star.\n    Thus, mingling with the mass, the general soul\n    Lives in the parts, and agitates the whole.\n    From that celestial energy began\n    The low\u2010browed brute, th\u2019 imperial race of man,\n    The painted birds who wing th\u2019 a\u00ebrial plain,\n    And all the mighty monsters of the main;\n    Their souls at first from high Olympus came,\u201d &c.(87)\n\n\nJust as if the world, which is a theatre erected for displaying the glory\nof God, were its own creator! For thus writes the same poet in another\nplace, following the common opinion of the Greeks and Latins\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cLed by such wonders, sages have opined,\n    That bees have portions of a heavenly mind;\n    That God pervades, and, like one common soul,\n    Fills, feeds, and animates the world\u2019s great whole;\n    That flocks, herds, beasts, and men, from him receive\n    Their vital breath; in him all move and live;\n    That souls discerpt from him shall never die,\n    But back resolved to God and heaven shall fly,\n    And live for ever in the starry sky.\u201d(88)\n\n\nSee the efficacy of that jejune speculation concerning a universal mind\nanimating and actuating the world, in the production and encouragement of\npiety in the human heart. This more fully appears also from the profane\nexpressions of the filthy Lucretius, which are deductions from the same\nprinciple.(89) Its true tendency is to set up a shadowy deity, and to\nbanish all ideas of the true God, the proper object of fear and worship. I\nconfess, indeed, that the expression, that nature is God, may be used in a\npious sense by a pious mind; but, as it is harsh and inconsistent with\nstrict propriety of speech, nature being rather an order prescribed by\nGod, it is dangerous in matters so momentous, and demanding peculiar\ncaution, to confound the Deity with the inferior course of his works.\n\nVI. Let us remember, then, in every consideration of our own nature, that\nthere is one God, who governs all natures, and who expects us to regard\nhim, to direct our faith to him, to worship and invoke him. For nothing is\nmore preposterous than to enjoy such splendid advantages, which proclaim\nwithin us their divine origin, and to neglect the Author who bountifully\nbestows them. Now, what illustrious specimens of his power have we to\narrest our attention! unless it be possible for us not to know what\nstrength is required to sustain with his word this immense fabric of\nheaven and earth; now by his mere nod to shake the heaven with roaring\npeals of thunder, to consume whatever he choose with lightnings, and set\nthe atmosphere on fire with the flame; now to disturb it with tempests in\nvarious forms, and immediately, if he please, to compose all to\ninstantaneous serenity; to restrain, suspended as it were in air, the sea,\nwhich, by its elevation, seems to threaten the earth with continual\ndevastation; now raising it in a tremendous manner, by the tumultuous\nviolence of the winds, and now appeasing the waves to render it calm. To\nthis purpose are the numerous praises of the power of God, drawn from the\ntestimonies of nature, particularly in the book of Job, and in the\nprophecies of Isaiah; which I now purposely omit, as they will be more\nsuitably introduced, when I discuss the scriptural account of the creation\nof the world. Only I wished at present to hint, that this way of seeking\nGod, by tracing the lineaments which, both above and below us, exhibit\nsuch a lively adumbration of him, is common to aliens, and to those who\nbelong to his family. His power leads us to the consideration of his\neternity; because he, from whom all things derive their origin, must\nnecessarily be eternal and self\u2010existent. But if we inquire the reason\nthat induced him first to create all things, and now to preserve them, we\nshall find the sole cause to be his own goodness. But though this be the\nonly cause, it should be more than sufficient to attract us to love him;\nsince, according to the Psalmist,(90) there is no creature that does not\nparticipate in the effusions of his mercy.\n\nVII. In the second species of his works, such as happen out of the\nordinary course of nature, the proofs of his perfections are equally\nclear. For he so regulates his providence in the government of human\nsociety, that, while he exhibits, in innumerable ways, his benignity and\nbeneficence to all, he likewise declares, by evident and daily\nindications, his clemency to the pious, and his severity to the wicked and\nungodly. For no doubt can be entertained respecting his punishment of\nflagitious crimes; inasmuch as he clearly demonstrates himself to be the\nguardian and avenger of innocence, in prospering with his blessing the\nlife of good men, in assisting their necessities, assuaging and comforting\ntheir sorrows, alleviating their calamities, and providing in all things\nfor their safety. Nor should it perplex or eclipse his perpetual rule of\nrighteousness, that he frequently permits the wicked and guilty for a time\nto exult in impunity; but suffers good men to be undeservedly harassed\nwith much adversity, and even to be oppressed by the iniquitous malice of\nthe ungodly. We ought rather to make a very different reflection; that,\nwhen he clearly manifests his wrath in the punishment of one sin, he hates\nall sins; and that, since he now passes by many sins unpunished, there\nwill be a judgment hereafter, till which the punishment is deferred. So,\nalso, what ample occasion he supplies us for the consideration of his\nmercy, while, with unwearied benignity, he pursues the miserable, calling\nthem back to himself with more than paternal indulgence, till his\nbeneficence overcomes their depravity!\n\nVIII. To this end the Psalmist,(91) mentioning that God, in desperate\ncases, suddenly and wonderfully succors, beyond all expectation, those who\nare miserable and ready to perish, either protecting from beasts of prey\nsuch as are wandering in deserts, and, at length, reconducting them into\nthe right way, or supplying with food the needy and hungry, or delivering\ncaptives from dreary dungeons and iron chains, or bringing the shipwrecked\nsafe into port, or healing the diseases of some who are almost dead, or\nscorching the earth with excessive heat and drought, or fertilizing it\nwith the secret showers of his mercy, or elevating the meanest of the\nvulgar, or degrading nobles from their dignified stations,\u2014the Psalmist, I\nsay, having proposed such examples as these, infers from them that what\nare accounted fortuitous accidents, are so many proofs of his heavenly\nprovidence, especially of his paternal clemency; and that hence the pious\nhave cause to rejoice, while the mouths of the impious and reprobate are\nstopped. But, since the majority of men, immersed in their errors, are\nblind amidst the greatest opportunities of seeing, he accounts it a rare\ninstance of singular wisdom discreetly to consider these works of God;(92)\nfrom the sight of which, some, who, in other instances, discover the\ngreatest acuteness, receive no benefit. And, notwithstanding all the\ndisplays of the glory of God, scarcely one man in a hundred, is really a\nspectator of it. His power and wisdom are equally conspicuous. His power\nis illustriously manifested, when the ferocity of the impious, universally\ndeemed insuperable, is quelled in an instant, their arrogance subdued,\ntheir strongest fortresses demolished, their weapons and armour broken in\npieces, their strength diminished, their machinations confounded, and they\nfall by their own exertions; when the audacity, which exalted itself above\nthe heavens, is thrown down to the centre of the earth; when, on the\ncontrary, \u201cthe poor are raised out of the dust, and the needy out of the\ndunghill;\u201d(93) the oppressed and afflicted extricated from distressing\nextremities, and the desperate restored to a good hope; when the unarmed\nare victorious over those who are armed, the few over the many, the weak\nover the strong. But his wisdom is eminently displayed in ordering every\ndispensation at the best possible time, confounding the greatest worldly\nsagacity, \u201ctaking the wise in their own craftiness,\u201d(94) and finally\ndisposing all things according to the dictates of the highest reason.\n\nIX. We see that there is no need of any long or laborious argumentation,\nto obtain and produce testimonies for illustrating and asserting the\nDivine Majesty; since, from the few which we have selected and cursorily\nmentioned, it appears that they are every where so evident and obvious, as\neasily to be distinguished by the eyes, and pointed out with the fingers.\nAnd here it must again be observed, that we are invited to a knowledge of\nGod; not such as, content with empty speculation, merely floats in the\nbrain, but such as will be solid and fruitful, if rightly received and\nrooted in our hearts. For the Lord is manifested by his perfections:\nperceiving the influence and enjoying the benefits of which, we must\nnecessarily be more acutely impressed with such a knowledge, than if we\nimagined a Deity of whose influence we had no perception. Whence we\nconclude this to be the right way, and the best method of seeking God; not\nwith presumptuous curiosity to attempt an examination of his essence,\nwhich is rather to be adored than too curiously investigated; but to\ncontemplate him in his works, in which he approaches and familiarizes,\nand, in some measure, communicates himself to us. To this the Apostle\nreferred, when he said, that he is not to be sought far off, since, by his\nattribute of omnipresence, he dwells in every one of us.(95) Therefore\nDavid, having before confessed his greatness ineffable, after he descends\nto the mention of his works, adds, that he will \u201cdeclare this\ngreatness.\u201d(96) Wherefore it becomes us also to apply ourselves to such an\ninvestigation of God, as may fill our understanding with admiration, and\npowerfully interest our feelings. And, as Augustine somewhere teaches,\nbeing incapable of comprehending him, and fainting, as it were, under his\nimmensity, we must take a view of his works, that we may be refreshed with\nhis goodness.(97)\n\nX. Now, such a knowledge ought not only to excite us to the worship of\nGod, but likewise to awaken and arouse us to the hope of a future life.\nFor when we consider, that the specimens given by the Lord, both of his\nclemency and of his severity, are only begun, and not completed, we\ncertainly should esteem these as preludes to greater things, of which the\nmanifestation and full exhibition are deferred to another life. When we\nsee that pious men are loaded with afflictions by the impious, harassed\nwith injuries, oppressed with calumnies, and vexed with contumelious and\nopprobrious treatment; that the wicked, on the contrary, flourish,\nprosper, obtain ease and dignity, and all with impunity,\u2014we should\nimmediately conclude, that there is another life, to which is reserved the\nvengeance due to iniquity, and the reward of righteousness. Moreover, when\nwe observe the faithful frequently chastised by the Lord\u2019s rod, we may\nconclude, with great certainty, that the impious shall not always escape\nhis vengeance. For that is a wise observation of Augustine\u2014\u201cIf open\npunishment were now inflicted for every sin, it would be supposed that\nnothing would be reserved till the last judgment. Again, if God now did\nnot openly punish any sin, it would be presumed that there was no divine\nprovidence.\u201d(98) It must therefore be confessed, that in each of the works\nof God, but more especially in the whole considered together, there is a\nbright exhibition of the divine perfections; by which the whole human race\nis invited and allured to the knowledge of God, and thence to true and\ncomplete felicity. But, though those perfections are most luminously\nportrayed around us, we only discover their principal tendency, their use,\nand the end of our contemplation of them, when we descend into our own\nselves, and consider by what means God displays in us his life, wisdom,\nand power, and exercises towards us his righteousness, goodness, and\nmercy. For, though David justly complains that unbelievers are fools,\nbecause they consider not the profound designs of God in the government of\nmankind,(99) yet there is much truth in what he says in another place\u2014that\nthe wonders of Divine Wisdom in this respect exceed in number the hairs of\nour head.(100) But as this argument must be treated more at large in due\ncourse, I at present omit it.\n\nXI. But, notwithstanding the clear representations given by God in the\nmirror of his works, both of himself and of his everlasting dominion, such\nis our stupidity, that, always inattentive to these obvious testimonies,\nwe derive no advantage from them. For, with regard to the structure and\nvery beautiful organization of the world, how few of us are there, who,\nwhen lifting up their eyes to heaven, or looking round on the various\nregions of the earth, direct their minds to the remembrance of the\nCreator, and do not rather content themselves with a view of his works, to\nthe total neglect of their Author! And with respect to those things that\ndaily happen out of the ordinary course of nature, is it not the general\nopinion, that men are rolled and whirled about by the blind temerity of\nfortune, rather than governed by the providence of God? Or if, by the\nguidance and direction of these things, we are ever driven (as all men\nmust sometimes be) to the consideration of a God, yet, when we have rashly\nconceived an idea of some deity, we soon slide into our own carnal dreams,\nor depraved inventions, corrupting by our vanity the purity of divine\ntruth. We differ from one another, in that each individual imbibes some\npeculiarity of error; but we perfectly agree in a universal departure from\nthe one true God, to preposterous trifles. This disease affects, not only\nthe vulgar and ignorant, but the most eminent, and those who, in other\nthings, discover peculiar sagacity. How abundantly have all the\nphilosophers, in this respect, betrayed their stupidity and folly! For, to\nspare others, chargeable with greater absurdities, Plato himself, the most\nreligious and judicious of them all, loses himself in his round\nglobe.(101) And what would not befall others, when their principal men,\nwhose place it was to enlighten the rest, stumble upon such gross errors!\nSo also, while the government of human actions proves a providence too\nplainly to admit of a denial, men derive no more advantage from it, than\nif they believed all things to be agitated forwards and backwards by the\nuncertain caprice of fortune; so great is our propensity to vanity and\nerror! I speak exclusively of the excellent of mankind, not of the vulgar,\nwhose madness in the profanation of divine truth has known no bounds.\n\nXII. Hence that immense flood of errors, which has deluged the whole\nworld. For every man\u2019s understanding is like a labyrinth to him; so that\nit is not to be wondered at, that the different nations were drawn aside\ninto various inventions, and even that almost every individual had his own\nparticular deity. For, amidst the union of temerity and wantonness with\nignorance and darkness, scarcely a man could be found who did not frame to\nhimself some idol or phantasm instead of God. Indeed, the immense\nmultitude of gods proceeding from the mind of man, resembles the\nebullition of waters from a vast and ample spring, while every one, with\nan extreme licentiousness of error, invents one thing or another\nconcerning God himself. It is not necessary here to compose a catalogue of\nthe superstitions which have perplexed the world; for it would be an\nendless task; and, without a word more being said, the horrible blindness\nof the human mind sufficiently appears from such a multiplicity of\ncorruptions. I pass over the rude and unlearned vulgar. But among the\nphilosophers,(102) who attempted with reason and learning to penetrate\nheaven, how shameful is the diversity! In proportion to the vigour of his\nnatural genius, and the polish acquired by art and science, each of them\nseemed to give the more specious colouring to his own opinion; but, on a\nclose inspection, you will find them all fading colours. The Stoics said,\nin their own opinion very shrewdly, that from all the parts of nature may\nbe collected various names of God, but yet that the one God is not\ntherefore divided;(103) as if we were not already too much inclined to\nvanity, without being further and more violently seduced into error, by\nthe notion of such a various abundance of gods. The mystical theology of\nthe Egyptians also shows that they all sedulously endeavoured to preserve\nthe appearance of reason in the midst of their folly.(104) And any thing\napparently probable might at first sight, perhaps, deceive the simple and\nincautious; but there never was any human invention by which religion was\nnot basely corrupted. And this confused diversity imboldened the\nEpicureans, and other gross despisers of piety, to reject all idea of God.\nFor, seeing the wisest of men contending with each other for contrary\nopinions, they hesitated not, from their dissensions, and from the\nfrivolous and absurd doctrines maintained by the different parties, to\ninfer, that it was vain and foolish for men to torment themselves with\ninvestigations concerning God, who does not exist. And this they thought\nthey might do with impunity, supposing that a compendious denial of any\nGod at all would be better than feigning uncertain gods, and thereby\noccasioning endless controversies. They reason very ignorantly, or rather\nendeavour to conceal their own impiety behind the ignorance of men, which\nnot at all justifies any encroachment on God. But from the general\nconfession, that there is no subject productive of so many dissensions\namong the learned as well as the unlearned, it is inferred, that the minds\nof men, which err so much in investigations concerning God, are extremely\nblind and stupid in celestial mysteries. Others commend the answer of\nSimonides,(105) who, being asked by Hiero the Tyrant what God was,\nrequested a day to consider it. When the tyrant, the next day, repeated\nthe inquiry, he begged to be allowed two days longer; and, having often\ndoubled the number of days, at length answered, \u201cThe longer I consider the\nsubject, the more obscure it appears to me.\u201d He prudently suspended his\nopinion on a subject so obscure to him; yet this shows that men, who are\ntaught only by nature, have no certain, sound, or distinct knowledge, but\nare confined to confused principles; so that they worship an unknown God.\n\nXIII. Now, it must also be maintained, that whoever adulterates the pure\nreligion, (which must necessarily be the case of all who are influenced by\ntheir own imagination,) he is guilty of a departure from the one God. They\nwill profess, indeed, a different intention; but what they intend, or what\nthey persuade themselves, is of little importance; since the Holy Spirit\npronounces all to be apostates, who, in the darkness of their minds,\nsubstitute demons in the place of God. For this reason Paul declares the\nEphesians to have been \u201cwithout God\u201d(106)\u2014till they had learned from the\ngospel the worship of the true God. Nor should this be restricted to one\nnation only, since, in another place, he asserts of men in general, that\nthey \u201cbecame vain in their imaginations,\u201d(107) after the majesty of the\nCreator had been discovered to them in the structure of the world. And\ntherefore the Scripture, to make room for the only true God, condemns, as\nfalse and lying, whatever was formerly worshipped as divine among the\nGentiles,(108) and leaves no Deity but in Mount Sion, where flourished the\npeculiar knowledge of God. Indeed, among the Gentiles, the Samaritans, in\nthe days of Christ, seemed to approach very nearly to true piety; yet we\nhear, from the mouth of Christ, that they \u201cworshipped they knew not\nwhat;\u201d(109) whence it follows, that they were under a vain and erroneous\ndelusion. In fine, though they were not all the subjects of gross vices,\nor open idolaters, there was no pure and approved religion, their notions\nbeing founded only in common sense. For, though there were a few\nuninfected with the madness of the vulgar, this assertion of Paul remains\nunshaken, that \u201cnone of the princes of this world knew the wisdom of\nGod.\u201d(110) But if the most exalted have been involved in the darkness of\nerror, what must be said of the dregs of the people! Wherefore it is not\nsurprising if the Holy Spirit reject, as spurious, every form of worship\nwhich is of human contrivance; because, in the mysteries of heaven, an\nopinion acquired by human means, though it may not always produce an\nimmense mass of errors, yet always produces some. And though no worse\nconsequence follow, it is no trivial fault to worship, at an uncertainty,\nan unknown god; of which, however, Christ pronounces all to be guilty who\nhave not been taught by the law what god they ought to worship. And indeed\nthe best legislators have proceeded no further than to declare religion to\nbe founded upon common consent. And even Socrates, in Xenophon,(111)\npraises the answer of Apollo, which directed that every man should worship\nthe gods according to the rites of his country, and the custom of his own\ncity. But whence had mortals this right of determining, by their own\nauthority, what far exceeds all the world? or who could so acquiesce in\nthe decrees of the rulers or the ordinances of the people, as without\nhesitation to receive a god delivered to him by the authority of man?\nEvery man will rather abide by his own judgment, than be subject to the\nwill of another. Since, then, the following of the custom of a city, or\nthe consent of antiquity, in divine worship, is too weak and frail a bond\nof piety, it remains for God himself to give a revelation concerning\nhimself from heaven.\n\nXIV. Vain, therefore, is the light afforded us in the formation of the\nworld to illustrate the glory of its Author; which, though its rays be\ndiffused all around us, is insufficient to conduct us into the right way.\nSome sparks, indeed, are kindled, but smothered before they have emitted\nany great degree of light. Wherefore the Apostle, in the place before\ncited, says, \u201cBy faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the\nword of God;\u201d(112) thus intimating, that the invisible Deity was\nrepresented by such visible objects, yet that we have no eyes to discern\nhim, unless they be illuminated through faith by an internal revelation of\nGod. Nor does Paul, where he observes, that \u201cthat which may be known of\nGod is manifest\u201d(113) in the creation of the world, design such a\nmanifestation as human sagacity may comprehend; but rather shows, that its\nutmost extent is to render men inexcusable. The same writer also, though\nin one place(114) he denies that God is to be traced far off, seeing he\ndwells within us, yet teaches, in another place,(115) the consequences of\nsuch a proximity. God, says he, \u201cin times past suffered all nations to\nwalk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness,\nin that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons,\nfilling our hearts with food and gladness.\u201d(116) Though the Lord, then, is\nnot destitute of a testimony concerning himself, while with various and\nmost abundant benignity he sweetly allures mankind to a knowledge of him,\nyet they persist in following their own ways, their pernicious and fatal\nerrors.\n\nXV. But whatever deficiency of natural ability prevents us from attaining\nthe pure and clear knowledge of God, yet, since that deficiency arises\nfrom our own fault, we are left without any excuse. Nor indeed can we set\nup any pretence of ignorance, that will prevent our own consciences from\nperpetually accusing us of indolence and ingratitude. Truly it would be a\ndefence worthy to be admitted, if a man should plead that he wanted ears\nto hear the truth, for the publication of which even the mute creatures\nare supplied with most melodious voices; if he should allege that his eyes\nare not capable of seeing what is demonstrated by the creatures without\nthe help of the eyes; if he should plead mental imbecility, while all the\nirrational creatures instruct us. Wherefore we are justly excluded from\nall excuse for our uncertain and extravagant deviations, since all things\nconspire to show us the right way. But, however men are chargeable with\nsinfully corrupting the seeds of divine knowledge, which, by the wonderful\noperation of nature, are sown in their hearts, so that they produce no\ngood and fair crop, yet it is beyond a doubt, that the simple testimony\nmagnificently borne by the creatures to the glory of God, is very\ninsufficient for our instruction. For as soon as a survey of the world has\njust shown us a deity, neglecting the true God, we set up in his stead the\ndreams and phantasms of our own brains; and confer on them the praise of\nrighteousness, wisdom, goodness, and power, due to him. We either obscure\nhis daily acts, or pervert them by an erroneous estimate; thereby\ndepriving the acts themselves of their glory, and their Author of his\ndeserved praise.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI. The Guidance And Teaching Of The Scripture Necessary To Lead\nTo The Knowledge Of God The Creator.\n\n\nThough the light which presents itself to all eyes, both in heaven and in\nearth, is more than sufficient to deprive the ingratitude of men of every\nexcuse, since God, in order to involve all mankind in the same guilt, sets\nbefore them all, without exception, an exhibition of his majesty,\ndelineated in the creatures,\u2014yet we need another and better assistance,\nproperly to direct us to the Creator of the world. Therefore he hath not\nunnecessarily added the light of his word, to make himself known unto\nsalvation, and hath honoured with this privilege those whom he intended to\nunite in a more close and familiar connection with himself. For, seeing\nthe minds of all men to be agitated with unstable dispositions, when he\nhad chosen the Jews as his peculiar flock, he enclosed them as in a fold,\nthat they might not wander after the vanities of other nations. And it is\nnot without cause that he preserves us in the pure knowledge of himself by\nthe same means; for, otherwise, they who seem comparatively to stand firm,\nwould soon fall. For, as persons who are old, or whose eyes are by any\nmeans become dim, if you show them the most beautiful book, though they\nperceive something written, but can scarcely read two words together, yet,\nby the assistance of spectacles, will begin to read distinctly,\u2014so the\nScripture, collecting in our minds the otherwise confused notions of\nDeity, dispels the darkness, and gives us a clear view of the true God.\nThis, then, is a singular favour, that, in the instruction of the Church,\nGod not only uses mute teachers, but even opens his own sacred mouth; not\nonly proclaims that some god ought to be worshipped, but at the same time\npronounces himself to be the Being to whom this worship is due; and not\nonly teaches the elect to raise their view to a Deity, but also exhibits\nhimself as the object of their contemplation. This method he hath observed\ntoward his Church from the beginning; beside those common lessons of\ninstruction, to afford them also his word; which furnishes a more correct\nand certain criterion to distinguish him from all fictitious deities. And\nit was undoubtedly by this assistance that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the\nrest of the patriarchs, attained to that familiar knowledge which\ndistinguished them from unbelievers. I speak not yet of the peculiar\ndoctrine of faith which illuminated them into the hope of eternal life.\nFor, to pass from death to life, they must have known God, not only as the\nCreator, but also as the Redeemer; as they certainly obtained both from\nhis word. For that species of knowledge, which related to him as the\nCreator and Governor of the world, in order, preceded the other. To this\nwas afterwards added the other internal knowledge, which alone vivifies\ndead souls, and apprehends God, not only as the Creator of the world, and\nas the sole Author and Arbiter of all events, but also as the Redeemer in\nthe person of the Mediator. But, being not yet come to the fall of man and\nthe corruption of nature, I also forbear to treat of the remedy. Let the\nreader remember, therefore, that I am not yet treating of that covenant by\nwhich God adopted the children of Abraham, and of that point of doctrine\nby which believers have always been particularly separated from the\nprofane nations, since that is founded on Christ; but am only showing how\nwe ought to learn from the Scripture, that God, who created the world, may\nbe certainly distinguished from the whole multitude of fictitious deities.\nThe series of subjects will, in due time, lead us to redemption. But,\nthough we shall adduce many testimonies from the New Testament, and some\nalso from the Law and the Prophets, in which Christ is expressly\nmentioned, yet they will all tend to prove, that the Scripture discovers\nGod to us as the Creator of the world, and declares what sentiments we\nshould form of him, that we may not be seeking after a deity in a\nlabyrinth of uncertainty.\n\nII. But, whether God revealed himself to the patriarchs by oracles and\nvisions, or suggested, by means of the ministry of men, what should be\nhanded down by tradition to their posterity, it is beyond a doubt that\ntheir minds were impressed with a firm assurance of the doctrine, so that\nthey were persuaded and convinced that the information they had received\ncame from God. For God always secured to his word an undoubted credit,\nsuperior to all human opinion. At length, that the truth might remain in\nthe world in a continual course of instruction to all ages, he determined\nthat the same oracles which he had deposited with the patriarchs should be\ncommitted to public records. With this design the Law was promulgated, to\nwhich the Prophets were afterwards annexed, as its interpreters.\u2014For,\nthough the uses of the law were many, as will be better seen in the proper\nplace; and particularly the intention of Moses, and of all the prophets,\nwas to teach the mode of reconciliation between God and man, (whence also\nPaul calls Christ \u201cthe end of the law,\u201d)(117)\u2014yet I repeat again, that,\nbeside the peculiar doctrine of faith and repentance, which proposes\nChrist as the Mediator, the Scripture distinguishes the only true God by\ncertain characters and titles, as the Creator and Governor of the world,\nthat he may not be confounded with the multitude of false gods. Therefore,\nthough every man should seriously apply himself to a consideration of the\nworks of God, being placed in this very splendid theatre to be a spectator\nof them, yet he ought principally to attend to the word, that he may\nattain superior advantages. And, therefore, it is not surprising, that\nthey who are born in darkness grow more and more hardened in their\nstupidity; since very few attend to the word of God with teachable\ndispositions, to restrain themselves within the limits which it\nprescribes, but rather exult in their own vanity. This, then, must be\nconsidered as a fixed principle, that, in order to enjoy the light of true\nreligion, we ought to begin with the doctrine of heaven; and that no man\ncan have the least knowledge of true and sound doctrine, without having\nbeen a disciple of the Scripture. Hence originates all true wisdom, when\nwe embrace with reverence the testimony which God hath been pleased\ntherein to deliver concerning himself. For obedience is the source, not\nonly of an absolutely perfect and complete faith, but of all right\nknowledge of God. And truly in this instance God hath, in his providence,\nparticularly consulted the true interests of mankind in all ages.\n\nIII. For, if we consider the mutability of the human mind,\u2014how easy its\nlapse into forgetfulness of God; how great its propensity to errors of\nevery kind; how violent its rage for the perpetual fabrication of new and\nfalse religions,\u2014it will be easy to perceive the necessity of the heavenly\ndoctrine being thus committed to writing, that it might not be lost in\noblivion, or evaporate in error, or be corrupted by the presumption of\nmen. Since it is evident, therefore, that God, foreseeing the inefficacy\nof his manifestation of himself in the exquisite structure of the world,\nhath afforded the assistance of his word to all those to whom he\ndetermined to make his instructions effectual,\u2014if we seriously aspire to a\nsincere contemplation of God, it is necessary for us to pursue this right\nway. We must come, I say, to the word, which contains a just and lively\ndescription of God as he appears in his works, when those works are\nestimated, not according to our depraved judgment, but by the rule of\neternal truth. If we deviate from it, as I have just observed, though we\nrun with the utmost celerity, yet, being out of the course, we shall never\nreach the goal. For it must be concluded, that the light of the Divine\ncountenance, which even the Apostle says \u201cno man can approach unto,\u201d(118)\nis like an inexplicable labyrinth to us, unless we are directed by the\nline of the word; so that it were better to halt in this way, than to run\nwith the greatest rapidity out of it. Therefore David, inculcating the\nnecessity of the removal of superstitions out of the world, that pure\nreligion may flourish, frequently introduces God as \u201creigning;\u201d(119) by\nthe word \u201creigning,\u201d intending, not the power which he possesses, and\nwhich he exercises in the universal government of nature, but the doctrine\nin which he asserts his legitimate sovereignty; because errors can never\nbe eradicated from the human heart, till the true knowledge of God is\nimplanted in it.\n\nIV. Therefore the same Psalmist, having said, that \u201cthe heavens declare\nthe glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy\u2010work; day unto day\nuttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge,\u201d(120) afterwards\nproceeds to the mention of the word: \u201cThe law of the Lord is perfect,\nconverting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the\nsimple: the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the\ncommandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.\u201d For, though he\nalso comprehends other uses of the law, yet he suggests, in general, that,\nsince God\u2019s invitation of all nations to him by the view of heaven and\nearth is ineffectual, this is the peculiar school of the children of God.\nThe same is adverted to in the twenty\u2010ninth Psalm, where the Psalmist,\nhaving preached the terrors of the Divine voice, which in thunders, in\nwinds, in showers, in whirlwinds, and in tempests, shakes the earth, makes\nthe mountains tremble, and breaks the cedars, adds, at length, towards the\nclose, \u201cin his temple doth every one speak of his glory;\u201d because\nunbelievers are deaf to all the voices of God, which resound in the air.\nSo, in another Psalm, after describing the terrible waves of the sea, he\nconcludes thus: \u201cThy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine\nhouse, O Lord, for ever.\u201d(121) Hence also proceeds the observation of\nChrist to the Samaritan woman, that her nation and all others worshipped\nthey knew not what; and that the Jews were the only worshippers of the\ntrue God.(122) For, since the human mind is unable, through its\nimbecility, to attain any knowledge of God without the assistance of his\nsacred word, all mankind, except the Jews, as they sought God without the\nword, must necessarily have been wandering in vanity and error.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII. The Testimony Of The Spirit Necessary To Confirm The\nScripture, In Order To The Complete Establishment Of Its Authority. The\nSuspension Of Its Authority On The Judgment Of The Church, An Impious\nFiction.\n\n\nBefore I proceed any further, it is proper to introduce some remarks on\nthe authority of the Scripture, not only to prepare the mind to regard it\nwith due reverence, but also to remove every doubt. For, when it is\nadmitted to be a declaration of the word of God, no man can be so\ndeplorably presumptuous, unless he be also destitute of common sense and\nof the common feelings of men, as to dare to derogate from the credit due\nto the speaker. But since we are not favoured with daily oracles from\nheaven, and since it is only in the Scriptures that the Lord hath been\npleased to preserve his truth in perpetual remembrance, it obtains the\nsame complete credit and authority with believers, when they are satisfied\nof its divine origin, as if they heard the very words pronounced by God\nhimself. The subject, indeed, merits a diffuse discussion, and a most\naccurate examination. But the reader will pardon me, if I attend rather to\nwhat the design of this work admits, than to what the extensive nature of\nthe present subject requires. But there has very generally prevailed a\nmost pernicious error, that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is\nconceded to them by the suffrages of the Church; as though the eternal and\ninviolable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will of men. For thus,\nwith great contempt of the Holy Spirit, they inquire, Who can assure us\nthat God is the author of them? Who can with certainty affirm, that they\nhave been preserved safe and uncorrupted to the present age? Who can\npersuade us that this book ought to be received with reverence, and that\nexpunged from the sacred number, unless all these things were regulated by\nthe decisions of the Church? It depends, therefore, (say they,) on the\ndetermination of the Church, to decide both what reverence is due to the\nScripture, and what books are to be comprised in its canon. Thus\nsacrilegious men, while they wish to introduce an unlimited tyranny, under\nthe name of the Church, are totally unconcerned with what absurdities they\nembarrass themselves and others, provided they can extort from the\nignorant this one admission, that the Church can do every thing. But, if\nthis be true, what will be the condition of those wretched consciences,\nwhich are seeking a solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises\nextant concerning it rest only on the judgment of men? Will the reception\nof such an answer cause their fluctuations to subside, and their terrors\nto vanish? Again, how will the impious ridicule our faith, and all men\ncall it in question, if it be understood to possess only a precarious\nauthority depending on the favour of men!\n\nII. But such cavillers are completely refuted even by one word of the\nApostle. He testifies that the church is \u201cbuilt upon the foundation of the\napostles and prophets.\u201d(123) If the doctrine of the prophets and apostles\nbe the foundation of the Church, it must have been certain, antecedently\nto the existence of the Church. Nor is there any foundation for this\ncavil, that though the Church derive its origin from the Scriptures, yet\nit remains doubtful what writings are to be ascribed to the prophets and\napostles, unless it be determined by the Church. For if the Christian\nChurch has been from the beginning founded on the writings of the prophets\nand the preaching of the apostles, wherever that doctrine is found, the\napprobation of it has certainly preceded the formation of the Church;\nsince without it the Church itself had never existed. It is a very false\nnotion, therefore, that the power of judging of the Scripture belongs to\nthe Church, so as to make the certainty of it dependent on the Church\u2019s\nwill. Wherefore, when the Church receives it, and seals it with her\nsuffrage, she does not authenticate a thing otherwise dubious or\ncontrovertible; but, knowing it to be the truth of her God, performs a\nduty of piety, by treating it with immediate veneration. But, with regard\nto the question, How shall we be persuaded of its divine original, unless\nwe have recourse to the decree of the Church? this is just as if any one\nshould inquire, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness,\nwhite from black, sweet from bitter? For the Scripture exhibits as clear\nevidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their colour, or\nsweet and bitter things of their taste.\n\nIII. I know, indeed, that they commonly cite the opinion of Augustine,\nwhere he says, \u201cthat he would not believe the Gospel unless he were\ninfluenced by the authority of the Church.\u201d(124) But how falsely and\nunfairly this is cited in support of such a notion, it is easy to discover\nfrom the context. He was in that contending with the Manichees, who wished\nto be credited, without any controversy, when they affirmed the truth to\nbe on their side, but never proved it. Now, as they made the authority of\nthe Gospel a pretext in order to establish the credit of their Manich\u00e6us,\nhe inquires what they would do if they met with a man who did not believe\nthe Gospel; with what kind of persuasion they would convert him to their\nopinion. He afterwards adds, \u201cIndeed, I would not give credit to the\nGospel,\u201d &c., intending, that he himself, when an alien from the faith,\ncould not be prevailed on to embrace the Gospel as the certain truth of\nGod, till he was convinced by the authority of the Church. And is it\nsurprising that any one, yet destitute of the knowledge of Christ, should\npay a respect to men? Augustine, therefore, does not there maintain that\nthe faith of the pious is founded on the authority of the Church, nor does\nhe mean that the certainty of the Gospel depends on it; but simply, that\nunbelievers would have no assurance of the truth of the Gospel, that would\nwin them to Christ, unless they were influenced by the consent of the\nChurch. And a little before, he clearly confirms it in these words: \u201cWhen\nI shall have commended my own creed, and derided yours, what judgment,\nthink you, ought we to form, what conduct ought we to pursue, but to\nforsake those who invite us to acknowledge things that are certain, and\nafterwards command us to believe things that are uncertain; and to follow\nthose who invite us first to believe what we cannot yet clearly see, that,\nbeing strengthened by faith, we may acquire an understanding of what we\nbelieve; our mind being now internally strengthened and illuminated, not\nby men, but by God himself?\u201d These are the express words of Augustine;\nwhence the inference is obvious to every one, that this holy man did not\ndesign to suspend our faith in the Scriptures on the arbitrary decision of\nthe Church, but only to show (what we all confess to be true) that they\nwho are yet unilluminated by the Spirit of God, are, by a reverence for\nthe Church, brought to such a docility as to submit to learn the faith of\nChrist from the Gospel; and that thus the authority of the Church is an\nintroduction to prepare us for the faith of the Gospel. For we see that he\nwill have the certainty of the pious to rest on a very different\nfoundation. Otherwise I do not deny his frequently urging on the Manichees\nthe universal consent of the Church, with a view to prove the truth of the\nScripture, which they rejected. Whence his rebuke of Faustus, \u201cfor not\nsubmitting to the truth of the Gospel, so founded, so established, so\ngloriously celebrated, and delivered through certain successions from the\napostolic age.\u201d But he nowhere insinuates that the authority which we\nattribute to the Scripture depends on the definitions or decrees of men:\nhe only produces the universal judgment of the Church, which was very\nuseful to his argument, and gave him an advantage over his adversaries. If\nany one desire a fuller proof of this, let him read his treatise \u201cOf the\nAdvantage of Believing;\u201d where he will find, that he recommends no other\nfacility of believing, than such as may afford us an introduction, and be\na proper beginning of inquiry, as he expresses himself; yet that we should\nnot be satisfied with mere opinion, but rest upon certain and solid truth.\n\nIV. It must be maintained, as I have before asserted, that we are not\nestablished in the belief of the doctrine till we are indubitably\npersuaded that God is its Author. The principal proof, therefore, of the\nScriptures is every where derived from the character of the Divine\nSpeaker. The prophets and apostles boast not of their own genius, or any\nof those talents which conciliate the faith of the hearers; nor do they\ninsist on arguments from reason; but bring forward the sacred name of God,\nto compel the submission of the whole world. We must now see how it\nappears, not from probable supposition, but from clear demonstration, that\nthis use of the divine name is neither rash nor fallacious. Now, if we\nwish to consult the true interest of our consciences; that they may not be\nunstable and wavering, the subjects of perpetual doubt; that they may not\nhesitate at the smallest scruples,\u2014this persuasion must be sought from a\nhigher source than human reasons, or judgments, or conjectures\u2014even from\nthe secret testimony of the Spirit. It is true that, if we were inclined\nto argue the point, many things might be adduced which certainly evince,\nif there be any God in heaven, that he is the Author of the Law, and the\nProphecies, and the Gospel. Even though men of learning and deep judgment\nrise up in opposition, and exert and display all the powers of their minds\nin this dispute, yet, unless they are wholly lost to all sense of shame,\nthis confession will be extorted from them, that the Scripture exhibits\nthe plainest evidences that it is God who speaks in it, which manifests\nits doctrine to be divine. And we shall soon see, that all the books of\nthe sacred Scripture very far excel all other writings. If we read it with\npure eyes and sound minds, we shall immediately perceive the majesty of\nGod, which will subdue our audacious contradictions, and compel us to obey\nhim. Yet it is acting a preposterous part, to endeavour to produce sound\nfaith in the Scripture by disputations. Though, indeed, I am far from\nexcelling in peculiar dexterity or eloquence, yet, if I were to contend\nwith the most subtle despisers of God, who are ambitious to display their\nwit and their skill in weakening the authority of Scripture, I trust I\nshould be able, without difficulty, to silence their obstreperous clamour.\nAnd, if it were of any use to attempt a refutation of their cavils, I\nwould easily demolish the boasts which they mutter in secret corners. But\nthough any one vindicates the sacred word of God from the aspersions of\nmen, yet this will not fix in their hearts that assurance which is\nessential to true piety. Religion appearing, to profane men, to consist\nwholly in opinion, in order that they may not believe any thing on foolish\nor slight grounds, they wish and expect it to be proved by rational\narguments, that Moses and the prophets spake by divine inspiration. But I\nreply, that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to all reason. For, as\nGod alone is a sufficient witness of himself in his own word, so also the\nword will never gain credit in the hearts of men, till it be confirmed by\nthe internal testimony of the Spirit. It is necessary, therefore, that the\nsame Spirit, who spake by the mouths of the prophets, should penetrate\ninto our hearts, to convince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles\nwhich were divinely intrusted to them. And this connection is very\nsuitably expressed in these words: \u201cMy Spirit that is upon thee, and my\nword which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor\nout of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed\u2019s seed, for\never.\u201d(125) Some good men are troubled that they are not always prepared\nwith clear proof to oppose the impious, when they murmur with impunity\nagainst the divine word; as though the Spirit were not therefore\ndenominated a \u201cseal,\u201d and \u201can earnest,\u201d for the confirmation of the faith\nof the pious; because, till he illuminate their minds, they are\nperpetually fluctuating amidst a multitude of doubts.\n\nV. Let it be considered, then, as an undeniable truth, that they who have\nbeen inwardly taught by the Spirit, feel an entire acquiescence in the\nScripture, and that it is self\u2010authenticated, carrying with it its own\nevidence, and ought not to be made the subject of demonstration and\narguments from reason; but it obtains the credit which it deserves with us\nby the testimony of the Spirit. For though it conciliate our reverence by\nits internal majesty, it never seriously affects us till it is confirmed\nby the Spirit in our hearts. Therefore, being illuminated by him, we now\nbelieve the divine original of the Scripture, not from our own judgment or\nthat of others, but we esteem the certainty, that we have received it from\nGod\u2019s own mouth by the ministry of men, to be superior to that of any\nhuman judgment, and equal to that of an intuitive perception of God\nhimself in it. We seek not arguments or probabilities to support our\njudgment, but submit our judgments and understandings as to a thing\nconcerning which it is impossible for us to judge; and that not like some\npersons, who are in the habit of hastily embracing what they do not\nunderstand, which displeases them as soon as they examine it, but because\nwe feel the firmest conviction that we hold an invincible truth; nor like\nthose unhappy men who surrender their minds captives to superstitions, but\nbecause we perceive in it the undoubted energies of the Divine power, by\nwhich we are attracted and inflamed to an understanding and voluntary\nobedience, but with a vigour and efficacy superior to the power of any\nhuman will or knowledge. With the greatest justice, therefore, God\nexclaims by Isaiah,(126) that the prophets and all the people were his\nwitnesses; because, being taught by prophecies, they were certain that God\nhad spoken without the least fallacy or ambiguity. It is such a\npersuasion, therefore, as requires no reasons; such a knowledge as is\nsupported by the highest reason, in which, indeed, the mind rests with\ngreater security and constancy than in any reasons; it is, finally, such a\nsentiment as cannot be produced but by a revelation from heaven. I speak\nof nothing but what every believer experiences in his heart, except that\nmy language falls far short of a just explication of the subject. I pass\nover many things at present, because this subject will present itself for\ndiscussion again in another place. Only let it be known here, that that\nalone is true faith which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts. And with\nthis one reason every reader of modesty and docility will be satisfied:\nIsaiah predicts that \u201call the children\u201d of the renovated Church \u201cshall be\ntaught of God.\u201d(127) Herein God deigns to confer a singular privilege on\nhis elect, whom he distinguishes from the rest of mankind. For what is the\nbeginning of true learning but a prompt alacrity to hear the voice of God?\nBy the mouth of Moses he demands our attention in these terms: \u201cSay not in\nthine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? or, Who shall descend into the\ndeep? The word is even in thy mouth.\u201d(128) If God hath determined that\nthis treasury of wisdom shall be reserved for his children, it is neither\nsurprising nor absurd, that we see so much ignorance and stupidity among\nthe vulgar herd of mankind. By this appellation I designate even those of\nthe greatest talents and highest rank, till they are incorporated into the\nChurch. Moreover, Isaiah, observing that the prophetical doctrine would be\nincredible, not only to aliens, but also to the Jews, who wished to be\nesteemed members of the family, adds, at the same time, the reason\u2014Because\nthe arm of the Lord will not be revealed to all.(129) Whenever, therefore,\nwe are disturbed at the paucity of believers, let us, on the other hand,\nremember that none, but those to whom it was given, have any apprehension\nof the mysteries of God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII. Rational Proofs To Establish The Belief Of The Scripture.\n\n\nWithout this certainty, better and stronger than any human judgment, in\nvain will the authority of the Scripture be either defended by arguments,\nor established by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other\nsupports; since, unless the foundation be laid, it remains in perpetual\nsuspense. Whilst, on the contrary, when, regarding it in a different point\nof view from common things, we have once religiously received it in a\nmanner worthy of its excellence, we shall then derive great assistance\nfrom things which before were not sufficient to establish the certainty of\nit in our minds. For it is admirable to observe how much it conduces to\nour confirmation, attentively to study the order and disposition of the\nDivine Wisdom dispensed in it, the heavenly nature of its doctrine, which\nnever savours of any thing terrestrial, the beautiful agreement of all the\nparts with each other, and other similar characters adapted to conciliate\nrespect to any writings. But our hearts are more strongly confirmed, when\nwe reflect that we are constrained to admire it more by the dignity of the\nsubjects than by the beauties of the language. For even this did not\nhappen without the particular providence of God, that the sublime\nmysteries of the kingdom of heaven should be communicated, for the most\npart, in a humble and contemptible style; lest, if they had been\nillustrated with more of the splendour of eloquence, the impious might\ncavil that their triumph is only the triumph of eloquence. Now, since that\nuncultivated and almost rude simplicity procures itself more reverence\nthan all the graces of rhetoric, what opinion can we form, but that the\nforce of truth in the sacred Scripture is too powerful to need the\nassistance of verbal art? Justly, therefore, does the apostle argue that\nthe faith of the Corinthians was founded, \u201cnot in the wisdom of men, but\nin the power of God,\u201d because his preaching among them was, \u201cnot with\nenticing words of man\u2019s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of\npower.\u201d(130) For the truth is vindicated from every doubt, when,\nunassisted by foreign aid, it is sufficient for its own support. But that\nthis is the peculiar property of the Scripture, appears from the\ninsufficiency of any human compositions, however artificially polished, to\nmake an equal impression on our minds. Read Demosthenes or Cicero; read\nPlato, Aristotle, or any others of that class; I grant that you will be\nattracted, delighted, moved, and enraptured by them in a surprising\nmanner; but if, after reading them, you turn to the perusal of the sacred\nvolume, whether you are willing or unwilling, it will affect you so\npowerfully, it will so penetrate your heart, and impress itself so\nstrongly on your mind, that, compared with its energetic influence, the\nbeauties of rhetoricians and philosophers will almost entirely disappear;\nso that it is easy to perceive something divine in the sacred Scriptures,\nwhich far surpasses the highest attainments and ornaments of human\nindustry.\n\nII. I grant, indeed, that the diction of some of the prophets is neat and\nelegant, and even splendid; so that they are not inferior in eloquence to\nthe heathen writers. And by such examples the Holy Spirit hath been\npleased to show, that he was not deficient in eloquence, though elsewhere\nhe hath used a rude and homely style. But whether we read David, Isaiah,\nand others that resemble them, who have a sweet and pleasant flow of\nwords, or Amos the herdsman, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, whose rougher\nlanguage savours of rusticity,\u2014that majesty of the Spirit, which I have\nmentioned, is every where conspicuous. I am not ignorant that Satan in\nmany things imitates God, in order that, by the fallacious resemblance, he\nmay more easily insinuate himself into the minds of the simple; and has\ntherefore craftily disseminated, in unpolished and even barbarous\nlanguage, the most impious errors, by which multitudes have been miserably\ndeceived, and has often used obsolete forms of speech as a mask to conceal\nhis impostures. But the vanity and fraud of such affectation are visible\nto all men of moderate understanding. With respect to the sacred\nScripture, though presumptuous men try to cavil at various passages, yet\nit is evidently replete with sentences which are beyond the powers of\nhuman conception. Let all the prophets be examined; not one will be found,\nwho has not far surpassed the ability of men; so that those to whom their\ndoctrine is insipid must be accounted utterly destitute of all true taste.\n\nIII. This argument has been copiously treated by other writers; wherefore\nit may suffice at present merely to hint at a few things which chiefly\nrelate to the subject in a general view. Beside what I have already\ntreated on, the antiquity of the Scripture is of no small weight. For,\nnotwithstanding the fabulous accounts of the Greek writers concerning the\nEgyptian theology, yet there remains no monument of any religion, but what\nis much lower than the age of Moses. Nor does Moses invent a new deity; he\nonly makes a declaration of what the Israelites had, through a long series\nof years, received by tradition from their forefathers concerning the\neternal God. For what does he aim at, but to recall them to the covenant\nmade with Abraham? If he had advanced a thing till then unheard of, it\nwould not have been received; but their liberation from the servitude in\nwhich they were detained must have been a thing well known to them all; so\nthat the mention of it immediately excited universal attention. It is\nprobable also that they had been informed of the number of four hundred\nyears. Now, we must consider, if Moses (who himself preceded all other\nwriters by such a long distance of time) derives the tradition of his\ndoctrine from so remote a beginning, how much the sacred Scripture exceeds\nin antiquity all other books.\n\nIV. Unless any would choose to credit the Egyptians, who extend their\nantiquity to six thousand years before the creation of the world. But\nsince their garrulity has been ridiculed even by all the profane writers,\nI need not trouble myself with refuting it. Josephus, in his book against\nAppion, cites from the most ancient writers testimonies worthy of being\nremembered; whence we may gather, that the doctrine contained in the law\nhas, according to the consent of all nations, been renowned from the\nremotest ages, although it was neither read nor truly understood. Now,\nthat the malicious might have no room for suspicion, nor even the wicked\nany pretence for cavilling, God hath provided the most excellent remedies\nfor both these dangers. When Moses relates what Jacob had, almost three\nhundred years before, by the spirit of inspiration pronounced concerning\nhis posterity, how does he disgrace his own tribe! He even brands it, in\nthe person of Levi, with perpetual infamy. \u201cSimeon,\u201d says he, \u201cand Levi,\ninstruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou\ninto their secret: unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou\nunited.\u201d(131) He certainly might have been silent on that disgraceful\ncircumstance, not only to spare his father, but also to avoid aspersing\nhimself, as well as all his family, with part of the same ignominy. How\ncan any suspicion be entertained of him, who, voluntarily publishing, from\nthe inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the first of the family from\nwhich he was descended was guilty of detestable conduct, neither consults\nhis own personal honours, nor refuses to incur the resentment of his\nrelations, to whom this must undoubtedly have given offence? When he\nmentions also the impious murmurings of Aaron, his brother, and Miriam,\nhis sister,(132) shall we say that he spake according to the dictates of\nthe flesh, or obeyed the command of the Holy Spirit? Besides, as he\nenjoyed the supreme authority, why did he not leave to his own sons, at\nleast, the office of the high\u2010priesthood, but place them in the lowest\nstation? I only hint at a few things out of many. But in the law itself\nmany arguments will every where occur, which challenge a full belief,\nthat, without controversy, the legation of Moses was truly divine.\n\nV. Moreover, the miracles which he relates, and which are so numerous and\nremarkable, are so many confirmations of the law which he delivered, and\nof the doctrine which he published. For that he was carried up into the\nmountain in a cloud; that he continued there forty days, deprived of all\nhuman intercourse; that, in the act of proclaiming the law, his face shone\nas with the rays of the sun; that lightnings flashed all around; that\nthunders and various noises were heard through the whole atmosphere; that\na trumpet sounded, but a trumpet not blown by human breath; that the\nentrance of the tabernacle was concealed from the view of the people by an\nintervening cloud; that his authority was so miraculously vindicated by\nthe horrible destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all their\nimpious faction; that a rock smitten with a rod immediately emitted a\nriver; that manna rained from heaven at his request;(133)\u2014are not all\nthese so many testimonies from heaven of his being a true prophet? If any\none object that I assume, as granted, things which are the subjects of\ncontroversy, this cavil is easily answered. For, as Moses published all\nthese things in an assembly of the people, what room was there for fiction\namong those who had been eye\u2010witnesses of the events? Is it probable that\nhe would make his appearance in public, and, accusing the people of\ninfidelity, contumacy, ingratitude, and other crimes, boast that his\ndoctrine had been confirmed in their sight by miracles which they had\nnever seen?\n\nVI. For this also is worthy of being remarked, that all his accounts of\nmiracles are connected with such unpleasant circumstances, as were\ncalculated to stimulate all the people, if there had been but the smallest\noccasion, to a public and positive contradiction; whence it appears, that\nthey were induced to coincide with him only by the ample conviction of\ntheir own experience. But since the matter was too evident for profane\nwriters to take the liberty of denying the performance of miracles by\nMoses, the father of lies has suggested the calumny of ascribing them to\nmagical arts. But by what kind of conjecture can they pretend to charge\nhim with having been a magician, who had so great an abhorrence of that\nsuperstition, as to command, that he who merely consulted magicians and\nsoothsayers should be stoned?(134) Certainly no impostor practises such\njuggling tricks, who does not make it his study, for the sake of acquiring\nfame, to astonish the minds of the vulgar. But what is the practice of\nMoses? Openly avowing that himself and his brother Aaron are nothing,(135)\nbut that they only execute the commands of God, he sufficiently clears his\ncharacter from every unfavourable aspersion. Now, if the events themselves\nbe considered, what incantation could cause manna to rain daily from\nheaven sufficient to support the people, and, if any one laid up more than\nthe proper quantity, cause it to putrefy, as a punishment from God for his\nunbelief? Add also the many serious examinations which God permitted his\nservant to undergo, so that the clamour of the wicked can now be of no\navail. For as often as this holy servant of God was in danger of being\ndestroyed, at one time by proud and petulant insurrections of all the\npeople, at another by the secret conspiracies of a few,\u2014how was it\npossible for him to elude their inveterate rage by any arts of deception?\nAnd the event evidently proves, that by these circumstances his doctrine\nwas confirmed to all succeeding ages.\n\nVII. Moreover, who can deny that his assigning, in the person of the\npatriarch Jacob, the supreme power to the tribe of Judah, proceeded from a\nspirit of prophecy,(136) especially if we consider the eventual\naccomplishment of this prediction? Suppose Moses to have been the first\nauthor of it; yet after he committed it to writing, there elapsed four\nhundred years in which we have no mention of the sceptre in the tribe of\nJudah. After the inauguration of Saul, the regal power seemed to be fixed\nin the tribe of Benjamin. When Samuel anointed David, what reason appeared\nfor transferring it? Who would have expected a king to arise out of the\nplebeian family of a herdsman? And of seven brothers, who would have\nconjectured that such an honour was destined for the youngest? And by what\nmeans did he attain a hope of the kingdom? Who can assert that this\nunction was directed by human art, or industry, or prudence, and was not\nrather a completion of the prediction of heaven? And in like manner do not\nhis predictions, although obscure, concerning the admission of the\nGentiles into the covenant of God, which were accomplished almost two\nthousand years after, clearly prove him to have spoken under a divine\ninspiration? I omit other predictions, which so strongly savour of a\ndivine inspiration, that all who have the use of their reason must\nperceive that it is God who speaks. In short, one song of his is a clear\nmirror in which God evidently appears.(137)\n\nVIII. But in the other prophets this is yet far more conspicuous. I shall\nonly select a few examples; for to collect all would be too laborious.\nWhen, in the time of Isaiah, the kingdom of Judah was in peace, and even\nwhen they thought themselves safe in the alliance of the Chaldeans, Isaiah\npublicly spake of the destruction of the city and the banishment of the\npeople.(138) Now, even if to predict long before things which then seemed\nfalse, but have since appeared to be true, were not a sufficiently clear\nproof of a divine inspiration, to whom but God shall we ascribe the\nprophecies which he uttered concerning their deliverance? He mentions the\nname of Cyrus, by whom the Chaldeans were to be subdued, and the people\nrestored to liberty.(139) More than a century elapsed after this prophecy\nbefore the birth of Cyrus; for he was not born till about the hundredth\nyear after the prophet\u2019s death. No man could then divine, that there would\nbe one Cyrus, who would engage in a war with the Babylonians, who would\nsubjugate such a powerful monarchy, and release the people of Israel from\nexile. Does not this bare narration, without any ornaments of diction,\nplainly demonstrate that Isaiah delivered the undoubted oracles of God,\nand not the conjectures of men? Again, when Jeremiah, just before the\npeople were carried away, limited the duration of their captivity to\nseventy years, and predicted their liberation and return, must not his\ntongue have been under the direction of the Spirit of God?(140) What\nimpudence must it be to deny that the authority of the prophets has been\nconfirmed by such proofs, or that what they themselves assert, in order to\nvindicate the credit due to their declarations, has been actually\nfulfilled! \u201cBehold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do\nI declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them.\u201d(141) I shall not\nspeak of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who, living in distant countries, but\nprophesying at the same time, so exactly accord in their declarations, as\nthough they had mutually dictated the words to each other. What shall we\nsay of Daniel? Has not he prophesied of the events of nearly six hundred\nyears in such a connected series, as if he were composing a history of\ntransactions already past and universally known? If pious men properly\nconsider these things, they will be sufficiently prepared to curb the\npetulance of the wicked; for the demonstration is too clear to be liable\nto any cavils.\n\nIX. I know what is objected by some clamorous men, who would\nostentatiously display the force of their understanding in opposing divine\ntruth. For they inquire, Who has assured us that Moses and the prophets\nactually wrote those books which bear their names? They even dare to\nquestion whether such a man as Moses ever existed. But if any man should\ncall in question the existence of Plato, or Aristotle, or Cicero, who\nwould deny that such madness ought to receive corporal punishment? The law\nof Moses has been wonderfully preserved, rather by the providence of\nheaven than by the endeavours of men. And though, through the negligence\nof the priests, it lay for a short time concealed, since it was found by\nthe pious king Josiah, it has continued in the hands of men through every\nsucceeding age.(142) Nor, indeed, did Josiah produce it as a thing unknown\nor new, but as what had always been public, and the memory of which was\nthen famous. The protograph had been appointed to be kept in the temple,\nand a transcript of it to be deposited in the royal archives;(143) only\nthe priests had discontinued their ancient custom of publishing the law,\nand the people themselves had neglected their wonted reading of it: yet\nthere scarcely passed an age in which its sanction was not confirmed and\nrenewed. Were they, who had the writings of David, ignorant of Moses? But,\nto speak of all at once, it is certain, that their writings descended to\nposterity only from hand to hand, (so to speak,) through a long series of\nyears transmitted from the fathers, who partly had heard them speak, and\npartly learned from others who heard them, while it was fresh in their\nmemory, that they had thus spoken.\n\nX. With regard to what they object from the history of the Maccabees, to\ndiminish the credit of the Scripture, nothing could be conceived more\nadapted to establish it. But first let us divest it of their artificial\ncolouring, and then retort upon them the weapon which they direct against\nus. When Antiochus, say they, commanded all the books to be burned, whence\nproceeded the copies which we now have? I, on the contrary, inquire, where\nthey could so speedily be fabricated. For it is evident, that, as soon as\nthe persecution subsided, they immediately appeared, and were, without\ncontroversy, acknowledged as the same by all pious men; who, having been\neducated in their doctrine, had been familiarly acquainted with them. Nay,\neven when all the impious, as if by a general conspiracy, so wantonly\ninsulted the Jews, no man ever dared to charge them with forging their\nbooks. For, whatever be their opinion of the Jewish religion, yet they\nconfess that Moses was the author of it. What, then, do these clamorous\nobjectors, but betray their own consummate impudence, when they slander,\nas supposititious, books whose sacred antiquity is confirmed by the\nconsent of all histories? But, to waste no more useless labour in refuting\nsuch stale calumnies, let us rather consider how carefully the Lord\npreserved his own word, when, beyond all hope, he rescued it from the fury\nof the most cruel of tyrants, as from a devouring fire;\u2014that he endued the\npious priests and others with so much constancy, that they hesitated not\nto redeem this treasure, if necessary, with their lives, to transmit it to\nposterity; and that he frustrated the most diligent inquisition of so many\ngovernors and soldiers. Who is there but must acknowledge it to have been\nan eminent and wonderful work of God, that those sacred monuments, which\nthe impious had flattered themselves were utterly destroyed, were soon\npublic again, as it were, fully restored to mankind, and, indeed, with far\ngreater honour? For soon after followed the Greek Translation, which\npublished them throughout the world. Nor was God\u2019s preserving the tables\nof his covenant from the sanguinary edicts of Antiochus, the only instance\nof his wonderful operation, but that, amidst such various miseries, with\nwhich the Jewish nation was diminished and laid waste, and at last nearly\nexterminated, these records still remained entire. The Hebrew language lay\nnot only despised, but almost unknown; and surely, had not God consulted\nthe interest of religion, it had been totally lost. For how much the Jews,\nafter their return from captivity, departed from the genuine use of their\nnative language, appears from the prophets of that age; which it is\ntherefore useful to observe, because this comparison more clearly evinces\nthe antiquity of the law and the prophets. And by whom hath God preserved\nto us the doctrine of salvation contained in the law and the prophets,\nthat Christ might be manifested in due time? By his most inveterate\nenemies, the Jews; whom Augustine therefore justly denominates the\nlibrarians of the Christian Church, because they have furnished us with a\nbook of which themselves make no use.\n\nXI. If we proceed to the New Testament, by what solid foundations is its\ntruth supported? Three Evangelists recite their history in a low and mean\nstyle. Many proud men are disgusted with that simplicity, because they\nattend not to the principal points of doctrine; whence it were easy to\ninfer, that they treat of heavenly mysteries which are above human\ncapacity. They who have a spark of ingenuous modesty will certainly be\nashamed, if they peruse the first chapter of Luke. Now, the discourses of\nChrist, a concise summary of which is comprised in these three\nEvangelists, easily exempt their writings from contempt. But John,\nthundering from his sublimity, more powerfully than any thunderbolt,\nlevels to the dust the obstinacy of those whom he does not compel to the\nobedience of faith. Let all those censorious critics whose supreme\npleasure consists in banishing all reverence for the Scripture out of\ntheir own hearts and the hearts of others, come forth to public view. Let\nthem read the Gospel of John: whether they wish it or not, they will there\nfind numerous passages, which, at least, arouse their indolence; and which\nwill even imprint a horrible brand on their consciences to restrain their\nridicule. Similar is the method of Paul and of Peter, in whose writings,\nthough the greater part be blind, yet their heavenly majesty attracts\nuniversal attention. But this one circumstance raises their doctrine\nsufficiently above the world, that Matthew, who had before been confined\nto the profit of his table, and Peter and John, who had been employed in\nfishing\u2010boats,\u2014all plain, unlettered men,\u2014had learned nothing in any human\nschool which they could communicate to others. And Paul, from not only a\nprofessed, but a cruel and sanguinary enemy, being converted to a new man,\nproves, by his sudden and unhoped for change, that he was constrained, by\na command from heaven, to vindicate that doctrine which he had before\nopposed. Let these men deny that the Holy Spirit descended on the\nApostles; or, at least, let them dispute the credibility of the history;\nyet the fact itself loudly proclaims, that they were taught by the Spirit,\nwho, though before despised as some of the meanest of the people, suddenly\nbegan to discourse in such a magnificent manner on the mysteries of\nheaven.\n\nXII. Besides, there are also other very substantial reasons why the\nconsent of the Church should have its weight. For it is not an unimportant\nconsideration, that, since the publication of the Scripture, so many\ngenerations of men should have agreed in voluntarily obeying it; and that\nhowever Satan, together with the whole world, has endeavoured by strange\nmethods to suppress or destroy it, or utterly to erase and obliterate it\nfrom the memory of man, yet it has always, like a palm\u2010tree, risen\nsuperior to all opposition, and remained invincible. Indeed, there has\nscarcely ever been a sophist or orator of more than common abilities, who\nhas not tried his strength in opposing it; yet they have all availed\nnothing. All the powers of the earth have armed themselves for its\ndestruction; but their attempts have all evaporated into smoke. How could\nit have so firmly resisted attacks on every quarter, if it had been\nsupported only by human power? Indeed, an additional proof of its Divine\norigin arises from this very circumstance, that, notwithstanding all the\nstrenuous resistance of men, it has, by its own power, risen superior to\nevery danger. Moreover, not one city, or one nation, only, has conspired\nto receive and embrace it; but, as far as the world extends, it has\nobtained its authority by the holy consent of various nations, who agreed\nin nothing besides. And as such an agreement of minds, so widely distant\nin place, and so completely dissimilar in manners and opinions, ought to\nhave great influence with us, since it is plain that it was effected only\nby the power of heaven, so it acquires no small weight from a\nconsideration of the piety of those who unite in this agreement; not\nindeed of all, but of those, who, it hath pleased the Lord, should shine\nas luminaries in his Church.\n\nXIII. Now, with what unlimited confidence should we submit to that\ndoctrine, which we see confirmed and witnessed by the blood of so many\nsaints! Having once received it, they hesitated not, with intrepid\nboldness, and even with great alacrity, to die in its defence: transmitted\nto us with such a pledge, how should we not receive it with a firm and\nunshaken conviction? Is it therefore no small confirmation of the\nScripture, that it has been sealed with the blood of so many martyrs?\nespecially when we consider that they died to bear testimony to their\nfaith, not through intemperate fanaticism, as is sometimes the case with\nmen of erroneous minds, but through a firm and constant, yet sober zeal\nfor God. There are other reasons, and those neither few nor weak, by which\nthe native dignity and authority of the Scripture are not only maintained\nin the minds of the pious, but also completely vindicated against the\nsubtleties of calumniators; but such as alone are not sufficient to\nproduce firm faith in it, till the heavenly Father, discovering his own\npower therein, places its authority beyond all controversy. Wherefore the\nScripture will then only be effectual to produce the saving knowledge of\nGod, when the certainty of it shall be founded on the internal persuasion\nof the Holy Spirit. Thus those human testimonies, which contribute to its\nconfirmation, will not be useless, if they follow that first and principal\nproof, as secondary aids to our imbecility. But those persons betray great\nfolly, who wish it to be demonstrated to infidels that the Scripture is\nthe word of God, which cannot be known without faith. Augustine therefore\njustly observes,(144) that piety and peace of mind ought to precede, in\norder that a man may understand somewhat of such great subjects.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX. The Fanaticism Which Discards The Scripture, Under The\nPretence Of Resorting To Immediate Revelations, Subversive Of Every\nPrinciple Of Piety.\n\n\nPersons who, abandoning the Scripture, imagine to themselves some other\nway of approaching to God, must be considered as not so much misled by\nerror as actuated by frenzy. For there have lately arisen some unsteady\nmen, who, haughtily pretending to be taught by the Spirit, reject all\nreading themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who still attend to\n(what they style) the dead and killing letter. But I would ask them, what\nspirit that is, by whose inspiration they are elevated to such a\nsublimity, as to dare to despise the doctrine of the Scripture, as puerile\nand mean. For, if they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, how\nridiculous is such an assurance! for that the apostles of Christ, and\nother believers in the primitive Church, were illuminated by no other\nSpirit, I think they will concede. But not one of them learned, from his\nteaching, to contemn the Divine word; they were rather filled with higher\nreverence for it, as their writings abundantly testify. This had been\npredicted by the mouth of Isaiah. For where he says, \u201cMy Spirit that is\nupon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart\nout of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, for ever,\u201d(145) he\ndoes not confine people under the old dispensation to the external letter,\nas though they were children learning to read, but declares, that it will\nbe the true and complete felicity of the new Church, under the reign of\nChrist, to be governed by the word of God, as well as by his Spirit.\nWhence we infer, that these persons are guilty of detestable sacrilege, in\ndisjoining these two things, which the prophet has connected in an\ninviolable union. Again; Paul, after he had been caught up into the third\nheaven, did not cease to study the doctrine of the law and the prophets;\nas he also exhorted Timothy, a teacher of more than common excellence, to\n\u201cgive attendance to reading.\u201d(146) And worthy of remembrance is his\neulogium on the Scripture, that it \u201cis profitable for doctrine, for\nreproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of\nGod may be perfect.\u201d(147) How diabolical, then, is that madness which\npretends that the use of the Scripture is only transient and temporary,\nwhich guides the sons of God to the highest point of perfection! I would\nalso ask them another question\u2014whether they have imbibed a different\nspirit from that which the Lord promised to his disciples? Great as their\ninfatuation is, I do not think them fanatical enough to hazard such an\navowal. But what kind of Spirit did he promise? One, truly, who should\n\u201cnot speak of himself,\u201d(148) but suggest and instil into their minds those\nthings which he had orally delivered. The office of the Spirit, then,\nwhich is promised to us, is not to feign new and unheard of revelations,\nor to coin a new system of doctrine, which would seduce us from the\nreceived doctrine of the Gospel, but to seal to our minds the same\ndoctrine which the Gospel delivers.\n\nII. Hence we readily understand that it is incumbent on us diligently to\nread and attend to the Scripture, if we would receive any advantage or\nsatisfaction from the Spirit of God; (thus also Peter(149) commends those\nwho studiously attended to the doctrine of the prophets, which yet might\nbe supposed to have retired after the light of the Gospel was risen;) but,\non the contrary, that if any spirit, neglecting the wisdom of the word of\nGod, obtrude on us another doctrine, he ought justly to be suspected of\nvanity and falsehood. For, as Satan transforms himself into an angel of\nlight, what authority will the Spirit have with us, unless we can\ndistinguish him by the most certain criterion? We find him clearly\ndesignated, indeed, in the word of the Lord; but these unhappy men are\nfondly bent on delusion, even to their own destruction, seeking a spirit\nrather from themselves than from him. But they plead, that it is unworthy\nof the Spirit of God, to whom all things ought to be subject, to be made\nsubject to the Scripture; as though it were ignominious to the Holy Spirit\nto be every where equal and uniform, in all things invariably consistent\nwith himself. If he were to be conformed to the rules of men, or of\nangels, or of any other beings, I grant he might then be considered as\ndegraded, or even reduced to a state of servitude; but while he is\ncompared with himself, and considered in himself, who will assert that he\nis thereby injured? This is bringing him to the test of examination. I\nconfess it is. But it is the way which he has chosen for the confirmation\nof his majesty among us. We ought to be satisfied, as soon as he\ncommunicates himself to us. But, lest the spirit of Satan should insinuate\nhimself under his name, he chooses to be recognized by us from his image,\nwhich he hath impressed in the Scriptures. He is the author of the\nScriptures: he cannot be mutable and inconsistent with himself. He must\ntherefore perpetually remain such as he has there discovered himself to\nbe. This is not disgraceful to him; unless we esteem it honourable for him\nto alter and degenerate from himself.\n\nIII. But their cavilling objection, that we depend on \u201cthe letter that\nkilleth,\u201d shows, that they have not escaped the punishment due to the\ndespisers of the Scripture. For it is sufficiently evident, that Paul is\nthere contending against the false apostles,(150) who, recommending the\nlaw to the exclusion of Christ, were seducing the people from the\nblessings of the New Covenant, in which the Lord engages to engrave his\nlaw in the minds of believers, and to inscribe it on their hearts. The\nletter therefore is dead, and the law of the Lord slays the readers of it,\nwhere it is separated from the grace of Christ, and only sounds in the\nears, without affecting the heart. But if it be efficaciously impressed on\nour hearts by the Spirit,\u2014if it exhibit Christ,\u2014it is the word of life,\n\u201cconverting the soul, making wise the simple,\u201d &c.(151) But in the same\nplace the Apostle also calls his preaching \u201cthe ministration of the\nSpirit;\u201d(152) doubtless intending, that the Holy Spirit so adheres to his\nown truth, which he hath expressed in the Scriptures, that he only\ndisplays and exerts his power where the word is received with due\nreverence and honour. Nor is this repugnant to what I before asserted,\nthat the word itself has not much certainty with us, unless when confirmed\nby the testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord hath established a kind of\nmutual connection between the certainty of his word and of his Spirit; so\nthat our minds are filled with a solid reverence for the word, when by the\nlight of the Spirit we are enabled therein to behold the Divine\ncountenance; and, on the other hand, without the least fear of mistake, we\ngladly receive the Spirit, when we recognize him in his image, that is, in\nthe word. This is the true state of the case. God did not publish his word\nto mankind for the sake of momentary ostentation, with a design to destroy\nor annul it immediately on the advent of the Spirit; but he afterwards\nsent the same Spirit, by whose agency he had dispensed his word, to\ncomplete his work by an efficacious confirmation of that word. In this\nmanner Christ opened the understanding of his two disciples;(153) not\nthat, rejecting the Scriptures, they might be wise enough of themselves,\nbut that they might understand the Scriptures. So when Paul exhorts the\nThessalonians to \u201cquench not the Spirit,\u201d(154) he does not lead them to\nempty speculations independent of the word; for he immediately adds,\n\u201cdespise not prophesyings;\u201d clearly intimating, that the light of the\nSpirit is extinguished when prophecies fall into contempt. What answer can\nbe given to these things, by those proud fanatics, who think themselves\npossessed of the only valuable illumination, when, securely neglecting and\nforsaking the Divine word, they, with equal confidence and temerity,\ngreedily embrace every reverie which their distempered imaginations may\nhave conceived? A very different sobriety becomes the children of God;\nwho, while they are sensible that, exclusively of the Spirit of God, they\nare utterly destitute of the light of truth, yet are not ignorant that the\nword is the instrument, by which the Lord dispenses to believers the\nillumination of his Spirit. For they know no other Spirit than that who\ndwelt in and spake by the apostles; by whose oracles they are continually\ncalled to the hearing of the word.\n\n\n\n\nChapter X. All Idolatrous Worship Discountenanced In The Scripture, By Its\nExclusive Opposition Of The True God To All The Fictitious Deities Of The\nHeathen.\n\n\nBut, since we have shown that the knowledge of God, which is otherwise\nexhibited without obscurity in the structure of the world, and in all the\ncreatures, is yet more familiarly and clearly unfolded in the word, it\nwill be useful to examine, whether the representation, which the Lord\ngives us of himself in the Scripture, agrees with the portraiture which he\nhad before been pleased to delineate in his works. This is indeed an\nextensive subject, if we intended to dwell on a particular discussion of\nit. But I shall content myself with suggesting some hints, by which the\nminds of the pious may learn what ought to be their principal objects of\ninvestigation in Scripture concerning God, and may be directed to a\ncertain end in that inquiry. I do not yet allude to the peculiar covenant\nwhich distinguished the descendants of Abraham from the rest of the\nnations. For in receiving, by gratuitous adoption, those who were his\nenemies into the number of his children, God even then manifested himself\nas a Redeemer; but we are still treating of that knowledge which relates\nto the creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator.\nBut though it will be useful soon to cite some passages from the New\nTestament, (since that also demonstrates the power of God in the creation,\nand his providence in the conservation of the world,) yet I wish the\nreader to be apprized of the point now intended to be discussed, that he\nmay not pass the limits which the subject prescribes. At present, then,\nlet it suffice to understand how God, the former of heaven and earth,\ngoverns the world which he hath made. Both his paternal goodness, and the\nbeneficent inclinations of his will, are every where celebrated; and\nexamples are given of his severity, which discover him to be the righteous\npunisher of iniquities, especially where his forbearance produces no\nsalutary effects upon the obstinate.\n\nII. In some places, indeed, we are favoured with more explicit\ndescriptions, which exhibit to our view an exact representation of his\ngenuine countenance. For Moses, in the description which he gives of it,\ncertainly appears to have intended a brief comprehension of all that it\nwas possible for men to know concerning him\u2014\u201cThe Lord, the Lord God,\nmerciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,\nkeeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and\nsin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of\nthe fathers upon the children, and upon the children\u2019s children.\u201d(155)\nWhere we may observe, first, the assertion of his eternity and self\u2010\nexistence, in that magnificent name, which is twice repeated; and\nsecondly, the celebration of his attributes, giving us a description, not\nof what he is in himself, but of what he is to us, that our knowledge of\nhim may consist rather in a lively perception, than in vain and airy\nspeculation. Here we find an enumeration of the same perfections which, as\nwe have remarked, are illustriously displayed both in heaven and on\nearth\u2014clemency, goodness, mercy, justice, judgment, and truth. For power\nis comprised in the word Elohim, God. The prophets distinguish him by the\nsame epithets, when they intend a complete exhibition of his holy name.\nBut, to avoid the necessity of quoting many passages, let us content\nourselves at present with referring to one Psalm;(156) which contains such\nan accurate summary of all his perfections, that nothing seems to be\nomitted. And yet it contains nothing but what may be known from a\ncontemplation of the creatures. Thus, by the teaching of experience, we\nperceive God to be just what he declares himself in his word. In Jeremiah,\nwhere he announces in what characters he will be known by us, he gives a\ndescription, not so full, but to the same effect\u2014\u201cLet him that glorieth\nglory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord,\nwhich exercise loving\u2010kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the\nearth.\u201d(157) These three things it is certainly of the highest importance\nfor us to know\u2014mercy, in which alone consists all our salvation; judgment,\nwhich is executed on the wicked every day, and awaits them in a still\nheavier degree to eternal destruction; righteousness, by which the\nfaithful are preserved, and most graciously supported. When you understand\nthese things, the prophecy declares that you have abundant reason for\nglorying in God. Nor is this representation chargeable with an omission of\nhis truth, or his power, or his holiness, or his goodness. For how could\nwe have that knowledge, which is here required, of his righteousness,\nmercy, and judgment, unless it were supported by his inflexible veracity?\nAnd how could we believe that he governed the world in judgment and\njustice, if we were ignorant of his power? And whence proceeds his mercy,\nbut from his goodness? If all his ways, then, are mercy, judgment, and\nrighteousness, holiness also must be conspicuously displayed in them.\nMoreover, the knowledge of God, which is afforded us in the Scriptures, is\ndesigned for the same end as that which we derive from the creatures: it\ninvites us first to the fear of God, and then to confidence in him; that\nwe may learn to honour him with perfect innocence of life, and sincere\nobedience to his will, and to place all our dependence on his goodness.\n\nIII. But here I intend to comprise a summary of the general doctrine. And,\nfirst, let the reader observe, that the Scripture, in order to direct us\nto the true God, expressly excludes and rejects all the gods of the\nheathen; because, in almost all ages, religion has been generally\ncorrupted. It is true, indeed, that the name of one supreme God has been\nuniversally known and celebrated. For those who used to worship a\nmultitude of deities, whenever they spake according to the genuine sense\nof nature, used simply the name of God, in the singular number, as though\nthey were contented with one God. And this was wisely remarked by Justin\nMartyr, who for this purpose wrote a book _On the Monarchy of God_, in\nwhich he demonstrates, from numerous testimonies, that the unity of God\nwas a principle universally impressed on the hearts of men. Tertullian\nalso proves the same point from the common phraseology.(158) But since all\nmen, without exception, have by their own vanity been drawn into erroneous\nnotions, and so their understandings have become vain, all their natural\nperception of the Divine unity has only served to render them inexcusable.\nFor even the wisest of them evidently betray the vagrant uncertainty of\ntheir minds, when they wish for some god to assist them, and in their vows\ncall upon unknown and fabulous deities. Besides, in imagining the\nexistence of many natures in God, though they did not entertain such\nabsurd notions as the ignorant vulgar concerning Jupiter, Mercury, Venus,\nMinerva, and the rest, they were themselves by no means exempt from the\ndelusions of Satan; and, as we have already remarked, whatever subterfuges\ntheir ingenuity has invented, none of the philosophers can exculpate\nthemselves from the crime of revolting from God by the corruption of his\ntruth. For this reason Habakkuk, after condemning all idols, bids us to\nseek \u201cthe Lord in his holy temple,\u201d(159) that the faithful might\nacknowledge no other God than Jehovah, who had revealed himself in his\nword.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XI. Unlawfulness Of Ascribing To God A Visible Form. All Idolatry\nA Defection From The True God.\n\n\nNow, as the Scripture, in consideration of the ignorance and dulness of\nthe human understanding, generally speaks in the plainest manner,\u2014where it\nintends to discriminate between the true God and all false gods, it\nprincipally contrasts him with idols; not that it may sanction the more\ningenious and plausible systems of the philosophers, but that it may\nbetter detect the folly and even madness of the world in researches\nconcerning God, as long as every one adheres to his own speculations. That\nexclusive definition, therefore, which every where occurs, reduces to\nnothing whatever notions of the Deity men may form in their own\nimaginations; since God alone is a sufficient witness concerning himself.\nIn the mean time, since the whole world has been seized with such brutal\nstupidity, as to be desirous of visible representations of the Deity, and\nthus to fabricate gods of wood, stone, gold, silver, and other inanimate\nand corruptible materials, we ought to hold this as a certain principle,\nthat, whenever any image is made as a representation of God, the Divine\nglory is corrupted by an impious falsehood. Therefore God, in the law,\nafter having asserted the glory of Deity to belong exclusively to himself,\nwhen he intends to show what worship he approves or rejects, immediately\nadds, \u201cThou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness.\u201d\nIn these words he forbids us to attempt a representation of him in any\nvisible figure; and briefly enumerates all the forms by which superstition\nhad already begun to change his truth into a lie. For the Persians, we\nknow, worshipped the sun; and the foolish heathen made for themselves as\nmany gods as they saw stars in the heavens. There was scarcely an animal,\nindeed, which the Egyptians did not consider as an image of God. The\nGreeks appeared wiser than the rest, because they worshipped the Deity\nunder the human form.(160) But God compares not idols with each other, as\nthough one were better or worse than another; but rejects, without a\nsingle exception, all statues, pictures, and other figures, in which\nidolaters imagined that he would be near them.\n\nII. This it is easy to infer from the reasons which he annexes to the\nprohibition. First, in the writings of Moses: \u201cTake ye therefore good heed\nunto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude, on the day that the\nLord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the\nvoice of the words, but saw no similitude; lest ye corrupt yourselves, and\nmake you a graven image, the similitude of any figure,\u201d &c.(161) We see\nhow expressly God opposes his \u201cvoice\u201d to every \u201cmanner of similitude,\u201d to\nshow, that whoever desires visible representations of him, is guilty of\ndeparting from him. It will be sufficient to refer to one of the Prophets,\nIsaiah,(162) who insists more than all the others on this argument, that\nthe Divine Majesty is dishonoured by mean and absurd fiction, when he that\nis incorporeal is likened to a corporeal form; he that is invisible, to a\nvisible image; he that is a spirit, to inanimate matter; and he that fills\nimmensity, to a log of wood, a small stone, or a lump of gold. Paul also\nreasons in the same manner: \u201cForasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of\nGod, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver,\nor stone, graven by art and man\u2019s device.\u201d(163) Whence it follows, that\nwhatever statues are erected, or images painted, to represent God, they\nare only displeasing to him, as being so many insults to the Divine\nMajesty. And why should we wonder at the Holy Spirit thundering forth such\noracles from heaven, since he compels the blind and wretched idolaters to\nmake a similar confession on earth? Well known is the complaint of Seneca,\nwhich is cited by Augustine: \u201cThey dedicate (says he) the vilest and\nmeanest materials to represent the sacred, immortal, and inviolable gods;\nand give them some a human form, and some a brutal one, and some a double\nsex, and different bodies; and they confer the name of gods upon images\nwhich, if animated, would be accounted monsters.\u201d Hence it further appears\nthat the pretence set up by the advocates for idols, that they were\nforbidden to the Jews because they were prone to superstition, is only a\nfrivolous cavil, to evade the force of the argument. As if truly that were\npeculiarly applicable to one nation, which God deduces from his eternal\nexistence, and the invariable order of nature! Besides, Paul was not\naddressing the Jews, but the Athenians, when he refuted the error of\nmaking any similitude of God.\n\nIII. Sometimes indeed God hath discovered his presence by certain signs,\nso that he was said to be seen \u201cface to face;\u201d(164) but all the signs\nwhich he ever adopted, were well calculated for the instruction of men,\nand afforded clear intimations of his incomprehensible essence. For \u201cthe\ncloud, and the smoke, and the flame,\u201d(165) though they were symbols of\ncelestial glory, nevertheless operated as a restraint on the minds of all,\nto prevent their attempting to penetrate any further. Wherefore even Moses\n(to whom he manifested himself more familiarly than to any other) obtained\nnot by his prayers a sight of the face of God, but received this answer:\n\u201cThou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see my face and\nlive.\u201d(166) The Holy Spirit once appeared in the form of a dove;(167) but,\nas he presently disappeared again, who does not perceive that by this\nmomentary symbol the faithful are taught that they should believe the\nSpirit to be invisible? that, being content with his power and grace, they\nmight make no external representation of him. The appearances of God in\nthe human form were preludes to his future manifestation in Christ.\nTherefore the Jews were not permitted to make this a pretext for erecting\na symbol of Deity in the figure of a man. \u201cThe mercy seat\u201d(168) also, from\nwhich, under the law, God displayed the presence of his power, was so\nconstructed, as to suggest that the best contemplation of the Divine Being\nis when the mind is transported beyond itself with admiration. For \u201cthe\ncherubim\u201d covered it with their extended wings; the veil was spread before\nit; and the place itself was sufficiently concealed by its secluded\nsituation. It is manifestly unreasonable therefore to endeavour to defend\nimages of God and of the saints, by the example of those cherubim. For,\npray, what was signified by those little images but that images are not\ncalculated to represent the Divine mysteries? since they were formed in\nsuch a manner as, by veiling the mercy seat with their wings, to prevent\nnot only the eyes, but all the human senses, from prying into God, and so\nto restrain all temerity. Moreover, the Prophet describes the seraphim\nwhom he saw in a vision, as having \u201ctheir faces covered;\u201d(169) to signify,\nthat the splendour of the Divine glory is so great, that even the angels\nthemselves cannot steadfastly behold it; and the faint sparks of it, which\nshine in the angels, are concealed from our view. The cherubim, however,\nof which we are now speaking, are acknowledged by all persons of sound\njudgment to have been peculiar to the old state of tutelage under the\nlegal dispensation. To adduce them, therefore, as examples for the\nimitation of the present age, is quite absurd. For that puerile period, as\nI may call it, for which such rudiments were appointed, is now past. And,\nindeed, it is a shameful consideration, that heathen writers are more\nexpert interpreters of the Divine law than the papists. Juvenal reproaches\nand ridicules the Jews for worshipping the white clouds and Deity of\nheaven. This language, indeed, is perverse and impious; but in denying\nthat there was any image of God among them, he speaks with more truth than\nthe papists, who idly pretend that there was some visible figure of him.\nBut as that nation frequently broke out into idolatry, with great and\nsudden impetuosity, resembling the violent ebullition of water from a\nlarge spring, hence let us learn the strong propensity of the human mind\nto idolatry, lest, imputing to the Jews a crime common to all, we should\nbe fascinated by the allurements of sin, and sleep the sleep of death.\n\nIV. To the same purpose is that passage, \u201cThe idols of the heathen are\nsilver and gold, the work of men\u2019s hands;\u201d(170) for the Prophet concludes,\nfrom the very materials, that they are no gods, whose images are made of\ngold or of silver; and takes it for granted, that every conception we form\nof the Deity, merely from our own understandings, is a foolish\nimagination. He mentions gold and silver rather than clay or stone, that\nthe splendour or the value of the materials may procure no reverence for\nthe idols. But he concludes in general, that nothing is more improbable,\nthan that gods should be manufactured from any inanimate matter. At the\nsame time he insists equally on another point\u2014that it is presumption and\nmadness in mortal men, who are every moment in danger of losing the\nfleeting breath which they draw, to dare to confer upon idols the honour\ndue to God. Man is constrained to confess that he is a creature of a day,\nand yet he will have a piece of metal to be worshipped as a god, of the\ndeity of which he is the author; for whence did idols originate, but in\nthe will of men? There is much propriety in that sarcasm of a heathen\npoet, who represents one of their idols as saying, \u201cFormerly, I was the\ntrunk of a wild fig\u2010tree, a useless log; when the artificer, after\nhesitating whether he would make me a stool or a deity, at length\ndetermined that I should be a god.\u201d(171)\n\nA poor mortal, forsooth, who is, as it were, expiring almost every moment,\nwill, by his workmanship, transfer to a dead stock the name and honour of\nGod. But as that Epicurean, in his satirical effusions, has paid no\nrespect to any religion,\u2014leaving this sarcasm, and others of the same\nkind, we should be stung and penetrated by the rebuke which the\nProphet(172) has given to the extreme stupidity of those, who, with the\nsame wood, make a fire to warm themselves, heat an oven for baking bread,\nroast or boil their meat, and fabricate a god, before which they prostrate\nthemselves, to address their humble supplications. In another place,\ntherefore, he not only pronounces them transgressors of the law, but\nreproaches them for not having learned from the foundations of the\nearth;(173) since, in reality, there is nothing more unreasonable than the\nthought of contracting the infinite and incomprehensible God within the\ncompass of five feet. And yet this monstrous abomination, which is\nmanifestly repugnant to the order of nature, experience demonstrates to be\nnatural to man. It must be further observed, that idols are frequently\nstigmatized as being the works of men\u2019s hands, unsanctioned by Divine\nauthority; in order to establish this principle, that all modes of worship\nwhich are merely of human invention, are detestable. The Psalmist\naggravates this madness, forasmuch as men implore the aid of dead and\ninsensible things, who are imbued with understanding to know that all\nthings are directed solely by the power of God. But since the corruption\nof nature carries all nations in general, and each individual in\nparticular, to such an excess of frenzy, the Spirit at length thunders out\nthis direful imprecation: \u201cLet those that make them be like unto them and\nevery one that trusteth in them.\u201d(174) Let it be observed, that all\nsimilitudes are equally as much forbidden as graven images; which refutes\nthe foolish subterfuge of the Greeks; for they think themselves quite\nsafe, if they make no sculpture of Deity, while in pictures they indulge\ngreater liberty than any other nations. But the Lord prohibits every\nrepresentation of him, whether made by the statuary, or by any other\nartificer, because all similitudes are criminal and insulting to the\nDivine Majesty.\n\nV. I know that it is a very common observation, that images are the books\nof the illiterate. Gregory said so; but very different is the decision of\nthe Spirit of God, in whose school had Gregory been taught, he would never\nhave made such an assertion. For, since Jeremiah pronounces that \u201cthe\nstock is a doctrine of vanities,\u201d(175) since Habakkuk represents \u201ca molten\nimage\u201d as \u201ca teacher of lies,\u201d(176)\u2014certainly the general doctrine to be\ngathered from these passages is, that whatever men learn respecting God\nfrom images is equally frivolous and false. If any one object, that the\nProphets only reprehended those who abuse images to the impious purposes\nof superstition,\u2014that indeed I grant; but affirm also, what is evident to\nevery one, that they utterly condemn what is assumed by the papists as an\nindubitable axiom, that images are substitutes for books. For they\ncontrast images with the true God, as contraries, which can never agree.\nThis comparison, I say, is laid down in those passages which I have just\ncited; that, since there is only one true God, whom the Jews worshipped,\nthere can be no visible figures made, to serve as representations of the\nDivine Being, without falsehood and criminality; and all who seek the\nknowledge of God from such figures are under a miserable delusion. Were it\nnot true, that all knowledge of God, sought from images, is corrupt and\nfallacious, it would not be so uniformly condemned by the Prophets. This\nat least must be granted to us, that, when we maintain the vanity and\nfallaciousness of the attempts of men to make visible representations of\nGod, we do no other than recite the express declarations of the Prophets.\n\nVI. Read likewise what has been written on this subject by Lactantius and\nEusebius, who hesitate not to assume as a certainty, that all those whose\nimages are to be seen, were mortal men. Augustine also confidently asserts\nthe unlawfulness, not only of worshipping images, but even of erecting any\nwith reference to God. Nor does he advance any thing different from what\nhad, many years before, been decreed by the Elibertine council, the\nthirty\u2010sixth chapter of which is as follows: \u201cIt hath been decreed, that\nno pictures be had in the churches, and that what is worshipped or adored\nbe not painted on the walls.\u201d But most remarkable is what Augustine\nelsewhere cites from Varro, and to the truth of which he subscribes\u2014\u201cThat\nthey who first introduced images of the gods, removed fear and added\nerror.\u201d If this had been a mere assertion of Varro alone, it might have\nperhaps but little authority; yet it should justly fill us with shame,\nthat a heathen, groping as it were in the dark, attained so much light as\nto perceive that corporeal representations were unworthy of the Divine\nMajesty, being calculated to diminish the fear of God, and to increase\nerror among mankind. The fact itself demonstrates this to have been spoken\nwith equal truth and wisdom; but Augustine, having borrowed it from Varro,\nadvances it as his own opinion. And first he observes that the most\nancient errors concerning God, in which men were involved, did not\noriginate from images, but were increased by them, as by the superaddition\nof new materials. He next explains that the fear of God is thereby\ndiminished, and even destroyed; since the foolish, ridiculous, and absurd\nfabrication of idols would easily bring his Divinity into contempt. Of the\ntruth of this second remark, I sincerely wish that we had not such proofs\nin our own experience. Whoever, therefore, desires to be rightly\ninstructed, he must learn from some other quarter than from images, what\nis to be known concerning God.\n\nVII. If the papists have any shame, let them no longer use this\nsubterfuge, that images are the books of the illiterate; which is so\nclearly refuted by numerous testimonies from Scripture. Yet, though I\nshould concede this point to them, it would avail them but little in\ndefence of their idols. What monsters they obtrude in the place of Deity\nis well known. But what they call the pictures or statues of their\nsaints\u2014what are they but examples of the most abandoned luxury and\nobscenity? which if any one were desirous of imitating, he would deserve\ncorporal punishment. Even prostitutes in brothels are to be seen in more\nchaste and modest attire, than those images in their temples, which they\nwish to be accounted images of virgins. Nor do they clothe the martyrs in\nhabits at all more becoming. Let them adorn their idols, then, with some\nsmall degree of modesty, that the pretence of their being books of some\nholiness, if not less false, may be less impudent. But even then, we will\nreply, that this is not the method to be adopted in sacred places for the\ninstruction of the faithful, whom God will have taught a very different\ndoctrine from any that can be learned from such insignificant trifles. He\nhath commanded one common doctrine to be there proposed to all, in the\npreaching of his word, and in his sacred mysteries; to which they betray\ngreat inattention of mind, who are carried about by their eyes to the\ncontemplation of idols. Whom, then, do the papists call illiterate, whose\nignorance will suffer them to be taught only by images? Those, truly, whom\nthe Lord acknowledges as his disciples; whom he honours with the\nrevelation of his heavenly philosophy; whom he will have instructed in the\nhealthful mysteries of his kingdom. I confess, indeed, as things are now\ncircumstanced, that there are at present not a few who cannot bear to be\ndeprived of such books. But whence arises this stupidity, but from being\ndefrauded of that teaching which alone is adapted to their instruction? In\nfact, those who presided over the churches, resigned to idols the office\nof teaching, for no other reason but because they were themselves dumb.\nPaul testifies, that in the true preaching of this gospel, Christ is\n\u201cevidently set forth,\u201d and, as it were, \u201ccrucified before our eyes.\u201d(177)\nTo what purpose, then, was the erection of so many crosses of wood and\nstone, silver and gold, every where in the temples, if it had been fully\nand faithfully inculcated, that Christ died that he might bear our curse\non the cross, expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, cleanse us by\nhis blood, and, in a word, reconcile us to God the Father? From this\nsimple declaration they might learn more than from a thousand crosses of\nwood or stone; for perhaps the avaricious fix their minds and their eyes\nmore tenaciously on the gold and silver crosses, than on any part of the\nDivine word.\n\nVIII. Respecting the origin of idols, the generally received opinion\nagrees with what is asserted in the book of Wisdom;(178) namely, that the\nfirst authors of them were persons who paid this honour to the dead, from\na superstitious reverence for their memory. I grant that this perverse\ncustom was very ancient, and deny not that it greatly contributed to\nincrease the rage of mankind after idolatry; nevertheless, I cannot\nconcede that it was the first cause of that evil. For it appears from\nMoses, that idols were in use long before the introduction of that\nostentatious consecration of the images of the dead, which is frequently\nmentioned by profane writers. When he relates that Rachel stole her\nfather\u2019s idols,(179) he speaks as of a common corruption. Whence we may\ninfer, that the mind of man is, if I may be allowed the expression, a\nperpetual manufactory of idols. After the deluge, there was, as it were, a\nregeneration of the world; but not many years elapsed before men\nfabricated gods according to their own fancy. And it is probable, that\nwhile the holy patriarch was yet alive, his posterity were addicted to\nidolatry, so that, with the bitterest grief, he might, with his own eyes,\nbehold the earth which God had lately purged from its corruptions by such\na dreadful judgment, again polluted with idols. For Terah and Nachor,\nbefore the birth of Abraham, were worshippers of false gods, as is\nasserted by Joshua.(180) Since the posterity of Shem so speedily\ndegenerated, what opinion must we entertain of the descendants of Ham, who\nhad already been cursed in their father? The true state of the case is,\nthat the mind of man, being full of pride and temerity, dares to conceive\nof God according to its own standard; and, being sunk in stupidity, and\nimmersed in profound ignorance; imagines a vain and ridiculous phantom\ninstead of God. These evils are followed by another; men attempt to\nexpress in the work of their hands such a deity as they have imagined in\ntheir minds. The mind then begets the idol, and the hand brings it forth.\nThe example of the Israelites proves this to have been the origin of\nidolatry, namely, that men believe not God to be among them, unless he\nexhibit some external signs of his presence. \u201cAs for this Moses,\u201d they\nsaid, \u201cwe wot not what is become of him; make us gods which shall go\nbefore us.\u201d(181) They knew, indeed, that there was a God, whose power they\nhad experienced in so many miracles; but they had no confidence in his\nbeing present with them, unless they could see some corporeal symbol of\nhis countenance, as a testimony of their Divine Guide. They wished,\ntherefore, to understand, from the image going before them, that God was\nthe leader of their march. Daily experience teaches, that the flesh is\nnever satisfied, till it has obtained some image, resembling itself, in\nwhich it may be foolishly gratified, as an image of God. In almost all\nages, from the creation of the world, in obedience to this stupid\npropensity, men have erected visible representations, in which they\nbelieved God to be presented to their carnal eyes.\n\nIX. Such an invention is immediately attended with adoration; for when men\nsupposed that they saw God in images, they also worshipped him in them. At\nlength, both their eyes and their minds being wholly confined to them,\nthey began to grow more stupid, and to admire them, as though they\npossessed some inherent divinity. Now, it is plain that men did not rush\ninto the worship of images, till they had imbibed some very gross opinion\nrespecting them; not, indeed, that they believed them to be gods, but they\nimagined that something of Divinity resided in them. When you prostrate\nyourself, therefore, in adoration of an image, whether you suppose it to\nrepresent God or a creature, you are already fascinated with superstition.\nFor this reason the Lord hath prohibited, not only the erection of statues\nmade as representations of him, but also the consecration of any\ninscriptions or monuments to stand as objects of worship. For the same\nreason, also, another point is annexed to the precept in the law\nconcerning adoration. For as soon as men have made a visible figure of\nGod, they attach Divine power to it. Such is the stupidity of men, that\nthey confine God to any image which they make to represent him, and\ntherefore cannot but worship it. Nor is it of any importance, whether they\nworship simply the idol, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry, when\nDivine honours are paid to an idol, under any pretence whatsoever. And as\nGod will not be worshipped in a superstitious or idolatrous manner,\nwhatever is conferred on idols is taken from him. Let this be considered\nby those who seek such miserable pretexts for the defence of that\nexecrable idolatry, with which, for many ages, true religion has been\noverwhelmed and subverted. The images, they say, are not considered as\ngods. Neither were the Jews so thoughtless as not to remember, that it was\nGod by whose hand they had been conducted out of Egypt, before they made\nthe calf. But when Aaron said that those were the gods by whom they had\nbeen liberated from Egypt, they boldly assented;(182) signifying,\ndoubtless, that they would keep in remembrance, that God himself was their\ndeliverer, while they could see him going before them in the calf. Nor can\nwe believe the heathen to have been so stupid, as to conceive that God was\nno other than wood and stone. For they changed the images at pleasure, but\nalways retained in their minds the same gods; and there were many images\nfor one god; nor did they imagine to themselves gods in proportion to the\nmultitude of images: besides, they daily consecrated new images, but\nwithout supposing that they made new gods. Read the excuses, which,\nAugustine says,(183) were alleged by the idolaters of the age in which he\nlived. When they were charged with idolatry, the vulgar replied, that they\nworshipped, not the visible figure, but the Divinity that invisibly dwelt\nin it. But they, whose religion was, as he expresses himself, more\nrefined, said, that they worshipped neither the image, nor the spirit\nrepresented by it; but that in the corporeal figure they beheld a sign of\nthat which they ought to worship. What is to be inferred from this, but\nthat all idolaters, whether Jewish or Gentile, have been guided by the\nnotion which I have mentioned? Not content with a spiritual knowledge of\nGod, they thought that they should receive more clear and familiar\nimpressions of him by means of images. After they had once pleased\nthemselves with such a preposterous representation of God, they ceased not\nfrom being deluded with new fallacies, till they imagined that God\ndisplayed his power in images. Nevertheless, the Jews were persuaded that,\nunder such images, they worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of\nheaven and earth; and the heathen, that they worshipped their false gods,\nwhom they pretended to be inhabitants of heaven.\n\nX. Those who deny that this has been done in time past, and even within\nour own remembrance, assert an impudent falsehood. For why do they\nprostrate themselves before images? And when about to pray, why do they\nturn themselves towards them, as towards the ears of God? For it is true,\nas Augustine says,(184) \u201cThat no man prays or worships thus, looking on an\nimage, who is not impressed with an opinion that he shall be heard by it,\nand a hope that it will do for him as he desires.\u201d Why is there so great a\ndifference between images of the same god, that one is passed by with\nlittle or no respect, and another is honoured in the most solemn manner?\nWhy do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages, in going to see\nimages resembling those which they have at home? Why do they at this day\nfight, even to slaughter and destruction, in defence of them, as of their\ncountry and religion, so that they could part with the only true God more\neasily than with their idols? Yet I am not here enumerating the gross\nerrors of the vulgar, which are almost infinite, and occupy nearly the\nhearts of all; I only relate what they themselves allege, when they are\nmost anxious to exculpate themselves from idolatry. \u201cWe never,\u201d say they,\n\u201ccall them our gods.\u201d Nor did the Jews or heathen in ancient times call\nthem their gods; and yet the Prophets, in all their writings, were\nconstantly accusing them of fornication with wood and stone, only on\naccount of such things as are daily practised by those who wish to be\nthought Christians; that is, for worshipping God, by corporeal adoration\nbefore figures of wood or stone.\n\nXI. I am neither ignorant, nor desirous of concealing, that they evade the\ncharge by a more subtle distinction, which will soon be noticed more at\nlarge. They pretend that the reverence which they pay to images is\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, (service of images,) but deny that it is \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\n(worship of images.) For in this manner they express themselves, when they\nmaintain, that the reverence which they call _dulia_, may be given to\nstatues or pictures, without injury to God. They consider themselves,\ntherefore, liable to no blame, while they are only the servants of their\nidols, and not worshippers of them; as though worship were not rather\ninferior to service. And yet, while they seek to shelter themselves under\na Greek term, they contradict themselves in the most childish manner. For\nsince the Greek word \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd signifies nothing else but to worship, what\nthey say is equivalent to a confession that they adore their images, but\nwithout adoration. Nor can they justly object, that I am trying to insnare\nthem with words: they betray their own ignorance in their endeavours to\nraise a mist before the eyes of the simple. But, however eloquent they may\nbe, they will never be able, by their rhetoric, to prove one and the same\nthing to be two different things. Let them point out, I say, a difference\nin fact, that they may be accounted different from ancient idolaters. For\nas an adulterer, or homicide, will not escape the imputation of guilt, by\ngiving his crime a new and arbitrary name, so it is absurd that these\npersons should be exculpated by the subtle invention of a name, if they\nreally differ in no respect from those idolaters whom they themselves are\nconstrained to condemn. But their case is so far from being different from\nthat of former idolaters, that the source of all the evil is a\npreposterous emulation, with which they have rivalled them by exercising\ntheir minds in contriving, and their hands in forming, visible symbols of\nthe Deity.\n\nXII. Nevertheless, I am not so scrupulous as to think that no images ought\never to be permitted. But since sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I\nwish for a pure and legitimate use of both; lest those things, which the\nLord hath conferred on us for his glory and our benefit, be not only\ncorrupted by preposterous abuse, but even perverted to our ruin. We think\nit unlawful to make any visible figure as a representation of God, because\nhe hath himself forbidden it, and it cannot be done without detracting, in\nsome measure, from his glory. Let it not be supposed that we are singular\nin this opinion; for that all sound writers have uniformly reprobated the\npractice, must be evident to persons conversant with their works. If,\nthen, it be not lawful to make any corporeal representation of God, much\nless will it be lawful to worship it for God, or to worship God in it. We\nconclude, therefore, that nothing should be painted and engraved but\nobjects visible to our eyes: the Divine Majesty, which is far above the\nreach of human sight, ought not to be corrupted by unseemly figures. The\nsubjects of those arts consist partly of histories and transactions,\npartly of images and corporeal forms, without reference to any\ntransactions. The former are of some use in information or recollection;\nthe latter, as far as I see, can furnish nothing but amusement. And yet it\nis evident, that almost all the images, which have hitherto been set up in\nthe churches, have been of this latter description. Hence it may be seen,\nthat they were placed there, not with judgment and discrimination, but\nfrom a foolish and inconsiderate passion for them. I say nothing here of\nthe impropriety and indecency conspicuous in most of them, and the wanton\nlicentiousness displayed in them by the painters and statuaries, at which\nI have before hinted: I only assert, that even if they were intrinsically\nfaultless, still they would be altogether unavailing for the purposes of\ninstruction.\n\nXIII. But, passing over that difference also, let us consider, as we\nproceed, whether it be expedient to have any images at all in Christian\ntemples, either descriptive of historical events, or representative of\nhuman forms. In the first place, if the authority of the ancient Church\nhave any influence with us, let us remember, that for about five hundred\nyears, while religion continued in a more prosperous state, and purer\ndoctrine prevailed, the Christian churches were generally without images.\nThey were then first introduced, therefore, to ornament the churches, when\nthe purity of the ministry had begun to degenerate. I will not dispute\nwhat was the reason which influenced the first authors of them; but if you\ncompare one age with another, you will see that they were much declined\nfrom the integrity of those who had no images. Who can suppose, that those\nholy fathers would have permitted the Church to remain so long destitute\nof what they judged useful and salutary for it? The fact was, that,\ninstead of omitting them through ignorance or negligence, they perceived\nthem to be of little or no use, but, on the contrary, pregnant with much\ndanger; and, therefore, intentionally and wisely rejected them. This is\nasserted in express terms by Augustine: \u201cWhen they are fixed,\u201d says he,\n\u201cin those places in an honourable elevation, to attract the attention of\nthose who are praying and sacrificing, though they are destitute of sense\nand life, yet, by the very similitude of living members and senses, they\naffect weak minds, so that they appear to them to live and breathe,\u201d\n&c.(185) And in another place: \u201cFor that representation of members leads,\nand, as it were, constrains, the mind, which animates a body, to suppose\nthat body to be endued with perception, which it sees to be very similar\nto its own,\u201d &c. And a little after: \u201cIdols have more influence to bow\ndown an unhappy soul, because they have a mouth, eyes, ears, and feet,\nthan to correct it, because they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor\nwalk.\u201d This indeed appears to be the reason of John\u2019s exhortation to \u201ckeep\nourselves,\u201d not only from the worship of idols, but \u201cfrom idols\u201d\nthemselves. And we have found it too true, that, through the horrible\nfrenzy, which, almost to the total destruction of piety, hath heretofore\npossessed the world, as soon as images are set up in churches, there is,\nas it were, a standard of idolatry erected; for the folly of mankind\ncannot refrain from immediately falling into idolatrous worship. But, even\nif the danger were less, yet, when I consider the use for which temples\nwere designed, it appears to me extremely unworthy of their sanctity, to\nreceive any other images, than those natural and expressive ones, which\nthe Lord hath consecrated in his word; I mean Baptism, and the Supper of\nthe Lord, and the other ceremonies, with which our eyes ought to be more\nattentively engaged, and more sensibly affected, than to require any\nothers formed by human ingenuity. Behold the incomparable advantages of\nimages! the loss of which, if you believe the papists, nothing can\ncompensate.\n\nXIV. The remarks already made on this subject, I think, would be\nsufficient, if it were not necessary to take some notice of the Council of\nNice; not that very celebrated one, which was convened by Constantine the\nGreat, but that which was held about eight hundred years ago, by the\ncommand, and under the auspices, of the Empress Irene. For that Council\ndecreed, not only that images should be had in churches, but also that\nthey should be worshipped. And, notwithstanding what I have advanced, the\nauthority of the Council would raise a strong prejudice on the contrary\nside. Though, to confess the truth, I am not much concerned at this, as I\nam to show the reader their extreme madness, whose fondness for images\nexceeded any thing that was becoming in Christians. But let us despatch\nthis point first: the present advocates for the use of images, allege the\nauthority of that Nicene Council in their defence. There is a book extant,\nwritten in refutation of this practice, under the name of Charlemagne;\nwhich, from the diction, we may conclude was composed at the same time. In\nthis work are recited the opinions of the bishops who attended the\nCouncil, and the arguments they used in the controversy. John, the\ndelegate of the Eastern churches, said, \u201cGod created man in his own\nimage;\u201d and hence he inferred that we ought to have images. The same\nprelate thought that images were recommended to us by this sentence: \u201cShow\nme thy face, for it is glorious.\u201d Another, to prove that they ought to be\nplaced on the altars, cited this testimony: \u201cNo man lighteth a candle, and\nputteth it under a bushel.\u201d Another, to show the contemplation of these to\nbe useful to us, adduced a verse from a Psalm: \u201cThe light of thy\ncountenance, O Lord, is sealed upon us.\u201d Another pressed this comparison\ninto his service: \u201cAs the patriarchs used the sacrifices of the heathen,\nso Christians ought to have the images of saints, instead of the idols of\nthe heathen.\u201d In the same manner they tortured that expression, \u201cLord, I\nhave loved the beauty of thy house.\u201d But the most ingenious of all was\ntheir interpretation of this passage: \u201cAs we have heard, so have we seen;\u201d\nthat therefore God is known, not only by the hearing of his word, but by\nthe contemplation of images. Similar is the subtlety of Bishop Theodore:\n\u201cGod is glorious in his saints.\u201d And in another place it is said, \u201cIn the\nsaints that are in the earth:\u201d therefore this ought to be referred to\nimages. But their impertinencies and absurdities are so disgusting, that I\nam quite ashamed to repeat them.\n\nXV. When they dispute concerning adoration, they bring forward Jacob\u2019s\nworshipping of Pharaoh, and of the staff of Joseph, and of the inscription\nerected by himself; although, in this last instance, they not only corrupt\nthe sense of the Scripture, but allege what is nowhere to be found. These\npassages also, \u201cWorship his footstool;\u201d \u201cWorship in his holy hill;\u201d and,\n\u201cAll the rich of the people shall supplicate thy face;\u201d they consider as\napposite and conclusive proofs. If any one wished to represent the\nadvocates for images in a ridiculous point of view, could he possibly\nascribe to them greater and grosser instances of folly? But, that no doubt\nof this might remain, Theodosius, bishop of Mira, defends the propriety of\nworshipping images from the dreams of his archdeacon, as seriously as if\nhe had an immediate revelation from heaven. Now, let the advocates of\nimages go and urge upon us the decree of that Council; as though those\nvenerable fathers had not entirely destroyed all their credit by such\npuerile treatment of the sacred Scriptures, or such impious and shameful\nmutilation of them.\n\nXVI. I come now to those prodigies of impiety, which it is wonderful that\nthey ever ventured to broach; and more wonderful still, that they have not\nbeen opposed with universal detestation. It is right to expose this\nflagitious madness, that the worship of images may at least be deprived of\nthe pretence of antiquity, which the papists falsely urge in its favour.\nTheodosius, bishop of Amorum, denounces an anathema against all who are\naverse to the worship of images. Another imputes all the calamities of\nGreece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. What\npunishments, then, did the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs deserve, in\nwhose time images were unknown? They add further, If the image of the\nemperor be met by processions with perfumes and incense, much more is this\nhonour due to the images of the saints. Constantius, bishop of Constance,\nin Cyprus, professes his reverence for images, and avows that he will pay\nthem the same worship and honour as is due to the Trinity, the source of\nall life; and whoever refuses to do the same, he anathematizes and\ndismisses with the Manichees and Marcionites. And, lest you should suppose\nthis to be the private opinion of an individual, they all declare their\nassent to it. John, the delegate of the Eastern churches, carried by the\nfervour of his zeal to still greater lengths, asserts it to be better to\nadmit all the brothels of the world into one city, than to reject the\nworship of images. At length it was unanimously decreed, that the\nSamaritans were worse than all heretics, and that the adversaries of\nimages were worse than the Samaritans. But, that the farce might not want\nits usual plaudit, they add this clause: \u201cLet them rejoice and exult, who\nhave the image of Christ, and offer sacrifice to it.\u201d Where is now the\ndistinction of _latria_ and _dulia_, with which they attempt to deceive\nboth God and men? For the Council gives the same honour, without any\nexception, to images and to the living God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XII. God Contradistinguished From Idols, That He May Be Solely And\nSupremely Worshipped.\n\n\nWe said, at the beginning, that the knowledge of God consists not in\nfrigid speculation, but is accompanied by the worship of him. We also\ncursorily touched on the right method of worshipping him, which will be\nmore fully explained in other places. I now only repeat, in few words,\nthat whenever the Scripture asserts that there is but one God, it contends\nnot for the bare name, but also teaches, that whatever belongs to the\nDeity, should not be transferred to another. This shows how pure religion\ndiffers from idolatry. The Greek word \u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 certainly signifies right\nworship, since even blind mortals, groping in the dark, have always\nperceived the necessity of some certain rule, that the worship of God may\nnot be involved in disorder and confusion. Although Cicero ingeniously and\ncorrectly derives the word _religion_ from a verb signifying \u201cto read over\nagain,\u201d or \u201cto gather again;\u201d yet the reason he assigns for it, that good\nworshippers often recollect, and diligently reconsider what is true, is\nforced and far\u2010fetched. I rather think the word is opposed to a liberty of\nwandering without restraint; because the greater part of the world rashly\nembrace whatever they meet with, and also ramble from one thing to\nanother; but piety, in order to walk with a steady step, collects itself\nwithin its proper limits. The word _superstition_ also appears to me to\nimport a discontent with the method and order prescribed, and an\naccumulation of a superfluous mass of vain things. But to leave the\nconsideration of words, it has been generally admitted, in all ages, that\nreligion is corrupted and perverted by errors and falsehoods; whence we\ninfer, that when we allow ourselves any thing from inconsiderate zeal, the\npretext alleged by the superstitious is altogether frivolous. Although\nthis confession is in the mouths of all, they betray, at the same time, a\nshameful ignorance, neither adhering to the one true God, nor observing\nany discrimination in his worship, as we have before shown. But God, to\nassert his own right, proclaims that he is \u201cjealous,\u201d and will be a severe\navenger, if men confound him with any fictitious deity; and then, to\nretain mankind in obedience, he defines his legitimate worship. He\ncomprises both in his law, where he first binds the faithful to himself,\nas their sole legislator; and then prescribes a rule for the right worship\nof him according to his will. Now, of the law, since the uses and ends of\nit are various, I shall treat in its proper place: at present, I only\nremark, that it sets up a barrier to prevent men turning aside to corrupt\nmodes of worship. Let us remember, what I have already stated, that,\nunless every thing belonging to Divinity remain in God alone, he is\nspoiled of his honour, and his worship is violated. And here it is\nnecessary to animadvert more particularly on the subtle fallacies of\nsuperstition. For it revolts not to strange gods, in such a manner as to\nappear to desert the supreme God, or to degrade him to a level with\nothers; but, allowing him the highest place, it surrounds him with a\nmultitude of inferior deities, among whom it distributes his honours; and\nthus, in a cunning and hypocritical manner, the glory of Divinity is\ndivided among many, instead of remaining wholly in one. Thus the ancient\nidolaters, Jews as well as Gentiles, imagined one God, the Father and\nGovernor of all, and subordinate to him a vast multitude of other deities;\nto whom, in common with the supreme God, they attributed the government of\nheaven and earth. Thus the saints, who departed out of this life some ages\nago, are exalted to the society of God, to be worshipped, and invoked, and\ncelebrated like him. We suppose, indeed, the glory of God not to be\nsullied with this abomination; whereas it is, in a great measure,\nsuppressed and extinguished, except that we retain some faint notion of\nhis supreme power; but, at the same time, deceived with such impostures,\nwe are seduced to the worship of various deities.\n\nII. On this account was invented the distinction of _latria_ and _dulia_,\nas they express themselves, by which they conceived they might safely\nascribe divine honours to angels and deceased men. For it is evident, that\nthe worship which papists pay to the saints, differs not in reality from\nthe worship of God; for they adore God and them promiscuously; but when\nthey are accused of it, they evade the charge with this subterfuge, that\nthey preserve inviolate to God what belongs to him, because they leave him\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. But since the question relates to a thing, not to a word, who can\nbear their careless trifling on the most important of all subjects? But,\nto pass this also, they will gain nothing at last by their distinction,\nbut that they render worship to God alone, and service to the saints. For\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, in Greek, signifies the same as _cultus_ in Latin, [and _worship_\nin English;] but \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 properly signifies _servitus_, [_service_;] and\nyet, in the Scriptures, this distinction is sometimes disregarded. But,\nsuppose it to be a constant distinction, it remains to be inquired, what\nis the meaning of each term. \u039b\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 is _worship_; \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 is _service_.\nNow, no one doubts, that to serve is more than to worship or honour. For\nit would be irksome to serve many persons, whom you would not refuse to\nhonour. So unjust is the distribution, to assign the greater to the\nsaints, and leave to God that which is less. But many of the ancients, it\nis urged, have used this distinction. What is that to the purpose, if\nevery one perceives it to be not only improper, but altogether frivolous?\n\nIII. Leaving these subtleties, let us consider the subject itself. Paul,\nwhen he reminds the Galatians what they had been before they were\nilluminated in the knowledge of God, says, that they \u201cdid service to them\nwhich by nature were no gods.\u201d(186) Though he mentions not \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\n(worship,) is their idolatry therefore excusable? He certainly condemns\nthat perverse superstition, which he denominates \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, (service,)\nequally as much as if he had used the word \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, (worship.) And when\nChrist repels the assault of Satan with this shield, \u201cIt is written, Thou\nshalt worship the Lord thy God,\u201d(187) the word \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 came not into the\nquestion; for Satan required nothing but \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, (prostration, or\nadoration.) So, when John is reprehended by an angel, for having fallen on\nhis knees before him,(188) we must not understand that John was so stupid\nas to intend to transfer to an angel the honour due exclusively to God.\nBut since all worship, that is connected with religion, cannot but savour\nof Divine, he could not (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) prostrate himself before the angel,\nwithout detracting from the glory of God. We read, indeed, frequently, of\nmen having been worshipped; but that was civil honour, so to speak;\nreligion has a different design; and no sooner is religion connected with\nworship, or homage, than it produces a profanation of the Divine honour.\nWe may see the same in Cornelius, who had not made such a small progress\nin piety, as not to ascribe supreme worship to God alone. When he \u201cfell\ndown\u201d before Peter, therefore, it certainly was not with an intention of\nworshipping him instead of God:(189) yet Peter positively forbade him to\ndo it. And why was this, but because men never so particularly distinguish\nbetween the worship or homage of God, and that of the creatures, as to\navoid transferring to a creature what belongs exclusively to God?\nWherefore, if we desire to have but one God, let us remember, that his\nglory ought not, in the least, to be diminished; but that he must retain\nall that belongs to him. Therefore Zechariah, when speaking of the\nrestoration of the Church, expressly declares, not only that \u201cthere shall\nbe one Lord,\u201d but also \u201cthat his name shall be one;\u201d(190) signifying,\nwithout doubt, that he will have nothing in common with idols. Now, what\nkind of worship God requires, will be seen, in due course, in another\nplace. For he hath been pleased, in his law, to prescribe to mankind what\nis lawful and right; and so to confine them to a certain rule, that every\nindividual might not take the liberty of inventing a mode of worship\naccording to his own fancy. But, since it is not proper to burden the\nreader, by confounding many subjects together, I shall not enter on that\npoint yet; let it suffice to know, that no religious services can be\ntransferred to any other than God alone, without committing sacrilege. At\nfirst, indeed, superstition ascribed Divine honours either to the sun, or\nto the other stars, or to idols. Afterwards followed ambition, which,\nadorning men with the spoils of God, dared to profane every thing that was\nsacred. And although there remained a persuasion, that they ought to\nworship a supreme God, yet it became customary to offer sacrifices\npromiscuously to genii, and inferior deities, and deceased heroes. So\nsteep is the descent to this vice, to communicate to a vast multitude that\nwhich God particularly challenges to himself alone!\n\n\n\n\nChapter XIII. One Divine Essence, Containing Three Persons; Taught In The\nScriptures From The Beginning.\n\n\nWhat is taught in the Scriptures concerning the immensity and spirituality\nof the essence of God, should serve not only to overthrow the foolish\nnotions of the vulgar, but also to refute the subtleties of profane\nphilosophy. One of the ancients,(191) in his own conception very shrewdly,\nsaid, that whatever we see, and whatever we do not see, is God. But he\nimagined that the Deity was diffused through every part of the world. But,\nalthough God, to keep us within the bounds of sobriety, speaks but rarely\nof his essence, yet, by those two attributes, which I have mentioned, he\nsupersedes all gross imaginations, and represses the presumption of the\nhuman mind. For, surely, his immensity ought to inspire us with awe, that\nwe may not attempt to measure him with our senses; and the spirituality of\nhis nature prohibits us from entertaining any earthly or carnal\nspeculations concerning him. For the same reason, he represents his\nresidence to be \u201cin heaven;\u201d for though, as he is incomprehensible, he\nfills the earth also; yet, seeing that our minds, from their dulness, are\ncontinually dwelling on the earth, in order to shake off our sloth and\ninactivity, he properly raises us above the world. And here is demolished\nthe error of the Manichees, who, by maintaining the existence of two\noriginal principles, made the devil, as it were, equal to God. This\ncertainly was both dividing the unity of God, and limiting his immensity.\nFor their daring to abuse certain testimonies of Scripture betrayed a\nshameful ignorance; as the error itself evidenced an execrable madness.\nThe Anthropomorphites also, who imagined God to be corporeal, because the\nScripture frequently ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet,\nare easily refuted. For who, even of the meanest capacity, understands\nnot, that God lisps, as it were, with us, just as nurses are accustomed to\nspeak to infants? Wherefore, such forms of expression do not clearly\nexplain the nature of God, but accommodate the knowledge of him to our\nnarrow capacity; to accomplish which, the Scripture must necessarily\ndescend far below the height of his majesty.\n\nII. But he also designates himself by another peculiar character, by which\nhe may be yet more clearly distinguished; for, while he declares himself\nto be but One, he proposes himself to be distinctly considered in Three\nPersons, without apprehending which, we have only a bare and empty name of\nGod floating in our brains, without any idea of the true God. Now, that no\none may vainly dream of three gods, or suppose that the simple essence of\nGod is divided among the three Persons, we must seek for a short and easy\ndefinition, which will preserve us from all error. But since some\nviolently object to the word Person, as of human invention, we must first\nexamine the reasonableness of this objection. When the Apostle denominates\nthe Son the express image of the hypostasis of the Father, he undoubtedly\nascribes to the Father some subsistence, in which he differs from the Son.\nFor to understand this word as synonymous with Essence, (as some\ninterpreters have done, as though Christ, like wax impressed with a seal,\nrepresented in himself the substance of the Father,) were not only harsh,\nbut also absurd. For the essence of God being simple and indivisible, he\nwho contains all in himself, not in part, or by derivation, but in\ncomplete perfection, could not, without impropriety, and even absurdity,\nbe called the express image of it. But since the Father, although\ndistinguished by his own peculiar property, hath expressed himself\nentirely in his Son, it is with the greatest reason asserted that he hath\nmade his hypostasis conspicuous in him; with which the other appellation,\ngiven him in the same passage, of \u201cthe brightness of his glory,\u201d exactly\ncorresponds. From the words of the Apostle, we certainly conclude, that\nthere is in the Father a proper hypostasis, which is conspicuous in the\nSon. And thence also we easily infer the hypostasis of the Son, which\ndistinguishes him from the Father. The same reasoning is applicable to the\nHoly Spirit; for we shall soon prove him also to be God; and yet he must,\nof necessity, be considered as distinct from the Father. But this is not a\ndistinction of the essence, which it is unlawful to represent as any other\nthan simple and undivided. It follows, therefore, if the testimony of the\nApostle be credited, that there are in God three _hypostases_. And, as the\nLatins have expressed the same thing by the word _person_, it is too\nfastidious and obstinate to contend about so clear a matter. If we wish to\ntranslate word for word, we may call it _subsistence_. Many, in the same\nsense, have called it _substance_. Nor has the word _person_ been used by\nthe Latins only; but the Greeks also, for the sake of testifying their\nconsent to this doctrine, taught the existence of three \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 (persons)\nin God. But both Greeks and Latins, notwithstanding any verbal difference,\nare in perfect harmony respecting the doctrine itself.\n\nIII. Now, though heretics rail at the word _person_, or some morose and\nobstinate men clamorously refuse to admit a name of human invention; since\nthey cannot make us assert that there are three, each of whom is entirely\nGod, nor yet that there are more gods than one, how very unreasonable is\nit to reprobate words which express nothing but what is testified and\nrecorded in the Scriptures! It were better, say they, to restrain not only\nour thoughts, but our expressions also, within the limits of the\nScripture, than to introduce exotic words, which may generate future\ndissensions and disputes; for thus we weary ourselves with verbal\ncontroversies; thus the truth is lost in altercation; thus charity expires\nin odious contention. If they call every word exotic, which cannot be\nfound in the Scriptures in so many syllables, they impose on us a law\nwhich is very unreasonable, and which condemns all interpretation, but\nwhat is composed of detached texts of Scripture connected together. But if\nby exotic they mean that which is curiously contrived, and superstitiously\ndefended, which tends to contention more than to edification, the use of\nwhich is either unseasonable or unprofitable, which offends pious ears\nwith its harshness, and seduces persons from the simplicity of the Divine\nword, I most cordially embrace their modest opinion. For I think that we\nought to speak of God with the same religious caution, which should govern\nour thoughts of him; since all the thoughts that we entertain concerning\nhim merely from ourselves, are foolish, and all our expressions absurd.\nBut there is a proper medium to be observed: we should seek in the\nScriptures a certain rule, both for thinking and for speaking; by which we\nmay regulate all the thoughts of our minds, and all the words of our\nmouths. But what forbids our expressing, in plainer words, those things\nwhich, in the Scriptures, are, to our understanding, intricate and\nobscure, provided our expressions religiously and faithfully convey the\ntrue sense of the Scripture, and are used with modest caution, and not\nwithout sufficient occasion? Of this, examples sufficiently numerous are\nnot wanting. But, when it shall have been proved, that the Church was\nabsolutely necessitated to use the terms Trinity and Persons, if any one\nthen censures the novelty of the words, may he not be justly considered as\noffended at the light of the truth? as having no other cause of censure,\nbut that the truth is explained and elucidated?\n\nIV. But such verbal novelty (if it must have this appellation) is\nprincipally used, when the truth is to be asserted in opposition to\nmalicious cavillers, who elude it by crafty evasions; of which we have too\nmuch experience in the present day, who find great difficulty in refuting\nthe enemies of pure and sound doctrine: possessed of serpentine lubricity,\nthey escape by the most artful expedients, unless they are vigorously\npursued, and held fast when once caught. Thus the ancients, pestered with\nvarious controversies against erroneous dogmas, were constrained to\nexpress their sentiments with the utmost perspicuity, that they might\nleave no subterfuges to the impious, who availed themselves of obscure\nexpressions, for the concealment of their errors. Unable to resist the\nclear testimonies of the Scriptures, Arius confessed Christ to be God, and\nthe Son of God; and, as though this were all that was necessary, he\npretended to agree with the Church at large. But, at the same time, he\ncontinued to maintain that Christ was created, and had a beginning like\nother creatures. To draw the versatile subtlety of this man from its\nconcealment, the ancient Fathers proceeded further, and declared Christ to\nbe the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Here\nimpiety openly discovered itself, when the Arians began inveterately to\nhate and execrate the name \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, (consubstantial.) But if, in the\nfirst instance, they had sincerely and cordially confessed Christ to be\nGod, they would not have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father.\nWho can dare to censure those good men, as quarrelsome and contentious,\nfor having kindled such a flame of controversy, and disturbed the peace of\nthe Church on account of one little word? That little word distinguished\nChristians, who held the pure faith, from sacrilegious Arians. Afterwards\narose Sabellius, who considered the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,\nas little more than empty sounds; arguing, that they were not used on\naccount of any real distinction, but were different attributes of God,\nwhose attributes of this kind are numerous. If the point came to be\ncontroverted, he confessed, that he believed the Father to be God, the Son\nGod, and the Holy Spirit God; but he would readily evade all the force of\nthis confession, by adding, that he had said no other than if he had\ncalled God potent, and just, and wise. And thus he came to another\nconclusion, that the Father is the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is the\nFather, without any order or distinction. The good doctors of that age,\nwho had the interest of religion at heart, in order to counteract the\nwickedness of this man, maintained, on the contrary, that they ought\nreally to acknowledge three peculiar properties in one God. And, to defend\nthemselves against his intricate subtleties, by the plain and simple\ntruth, they affirmed, that they truly subsisted in the one God; or, what\nis the same, that in the unity of God there subsisted a trinity of\nPersons.\n\nV. If, then, the words have not been rashly invented, we should beware\nlest we be convicted of fastidious temerity in rejecting them. I could\nwish them, indeed, to be buried in oblivion, provided this faith were\nuniversally received, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the one\nGod; and that nevertheless the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the\nSon, but that they are distinguished from each other by some peculiar\nproperty. I am not so rigidly precise as to be fond of contending for mere\nwords. For I observe that the ancients, who otherwise speak on these\nsubjects with great piety, are not consistent with each other, nor, in all\ncases, with themselves. For what forms of expression, adopted by councils,\ndoes Hilary excuse! To what extremes does Augustine sometimes proceed! How\ndifferent are the Greeks from the Latins! But of this variation, let one\nexample suffice: when the Latins would translate the word \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, they\ncalled it _consubstantial_, signifying the _substance_ of the Father and\nthe Son to be one, and thus using _substance_ for _essence_. Whence also\nJerome, writing to Damasus, pronounces it to be sacrilege to say that\nthere are three _substances_ in God. Yet, that there are three\n_substances_ in God, you will find asserted in Hilary more than a hundred\ntimes. But how perplexed is Jerome on the word _hypostasis_! For he\nsuspects some latent poison in the assertion, that there are three\n_hypostases_ in God. And if any one uses this word in a pious sense, he\nrefrains not from calling it an improper expression; if, indeed, he was\nsincere in this declaration, and did not rather knowingly and wilfully\nendeavour to asperse, with a groundless calumny, the bishops of the East,\nwhom he hated. He certainly discovers not much ingenuousness in affirming\nthat, in all the profane schools, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 (essence) is the same as\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, (hypostasis,) which the trite and common use of the words\nuniversally contradicts. More modesty and liberality are discovered by\nAugustine, who, though he asserts that the word _hypostasis_, in this\nsense, is new to Latin ears, yet leaves the Greeks their usual\nphraseology, and even peaceably tolerates the Latins, who had imitated\ntheir language; and the account of Socrates, in the sixth book of his\nTripartite History, seems to imply, that it was by ignorant men that it\nhad first been improperly applied to this subject. The same Hilary accuses\nthe heretics of a great crime, in constraining him, by their wickedness,\nto expose to the danger of human language those things which ought to be\nconfined within the religion of the mind; plainly avowing that this is to\ndo things unlawful, to express things inexpressible, to assume things not\nconceded. A little after, he largely excuses himself for his boldness in\nbringing forward new terms; for, when he has used the names of nature,\nFather, Son, and Spirit, he immediately adds, that whatever is sought\nfurther, is beyond the signification of language, beyond the reach of our\nsenses, beyond the conception of our understanding. And, in another place,\nhe pronounces that happy were the bishops of Gaul, who had neither\ncomposed, nor received, nor even known, any other confession but that\nancient and very simple one, which had been received in all the churches\nfrom the days of the Apostles. Very similar is the excuse of Augustine,\nthat this word was extorted by necessity, on account of the poverty of\nhuman language on so great a subject, not for the sake of expressing what\nGod is, but to avoid passing it over in total silence, that the Father,\nSon, and Spirit are three. This moderation of those holy men should teach\nus, not to pass such severe censures on those who are unwilling to\nsubscribe to expressions adopted by us, provided they are not actuated by\npride, perverseness, or disingenuous subtlety. But let them also, on the\nother hand, consider the great necessity which constrains us to use such\nlanguage, that, by degrees, they may at length be accustomed to a useful\nphraseology. Let them also learn to beware, since we have to oppose the\nArians on one side, and the Sabellians on the other, lest, while they take\noffence at both these parties being deprived of all opportunity of\nevasion, they cause some suspicion that they are themselves the disciples\neither of Arius or of Sabellius. Arius confesses, \u201cthat Christ is God;\u201d\nbut maintains also, \u201cthat he was created, and had a beginning.\u201d He\nacknowledges that Christ is \u201cone with the Father;\u201d but secretly whispers\nin the ears of his disciples, that he is \u201cunited to him,\u201d like the rest of\nthe faithful, though by a singular privilege. Say that he is\n_consubstantial_, you tear off the mask from the hypocrite, and yet you\nadd nothing to the Scriptures. Sabellius asserts, \u201cthat the names Father,\nSon, and Spirit, are expressive of no distinction in the Godhead.\u201d Say\nthat they are three, and he will exclaim, that you are talking of \u201cthree\ngods.\u201d Say, \u201cthat in the one essence of God there is a trinity of\nPersons,\u201d and you will at once express what the Scriptures declare, and\nwill restrain such frivolous loquacity. Now, if any persons are prevented,\nby such excessive scrupulousness, from admitting these terms, yet not one\nof them can deny, that, when the Scripture speaks of one God, it should be\nunderstood of a unity of substance; and that, when it speaks of three in\none essence, it denotes the Persons in this trinity. When this is honestly\nconfessed, we have no further concern about words. But I have found, by\nlong and frequent experience, that those who pertinaciously contend about\nwords, cherish some latent poison; so that it were better designedly to\nprovoke their resentment, than to use obscure language for the sake of\nobtaining their favour.\n\nVI. But, leaving the dispute about terms, I shall now enter on the\ndiscussion of the subject itself. What I denominate a Person, is a\nsubsistence in the Divine essence, which is related to the others, and yet\ndistinguished from them by an incommunicable property. By the word\n_subsistence_ we mean something different from the word _essence_. For, if\nthe _Word_ were simply God, and had no peculiar property, John had been\nguilty of impropriety in saying that he was always _with God_.(192) When\nhe immediately adds, that _the Word_ also _was God_, he reminds us of the\nunity of the essence. But because he could not be _with God_, without\nsubsisting in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, although\ninseparably connected with the essence, has a peculiar mark, by which it\nis distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences\nhas a relation to the others, but is distinguished from them by a peculiar\nproperty. We particularly use the word _relation_, (or _comparison_,)\nhere, because, when mention is made simply and indefinitely of God, this\nname pertains no less to the Son and Spirit, than to the Father. But\nwhenever the Father is compared with the Son, the property peculiar to\neach distinguishes him from the other. Thirdly, whatever is proper to each\nof them, I assert to be incommunicable, because whatever is ascribed to\nthe Father as a character of distinction, cannot be applied or transferred\nto the Son. Nor, indeed, do I disapprove of the definition of Tertullian,\nif rightly understood: \u201cThat there is in God a certain distribution or\neconomy, which makes no change in the unity of the essence.\u201d\n\nVII. But before I proceed any further, I must prove the Deity of the Son\nand of the Holy Spirit; after which we shall see how they differ from each\nother. When the Scripture speaks of _the Word of God_, it certainly were\nvery absurd to imagine it to be only a transient and momentary sound,\nemitted into the air, and coming forth from God himself; of which nature\nwere the oracles, given to the fathers, and all the prophecies. It is\nrather to be understood of the eternal wisdom residing in God, whence the\noracles, and all the prophecies, proceeded. For, according to the\ntestimony of Peter,(193) the ancient Prophets spake by the Spirit of\nChrist no less than the Apostles and all the succeeding ministers of the\nheavenly doctrine. But, as Christ had not yet been manifested, we must\nnecessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before the\nworld began. And if the Spirit that inspired the Prophets was the Spirit\nof the Word, we conclude, beyond all doubt, that the Word was truly God.\nAnd this is taught by Moses, with sufficient perspicuity, in the creation\nof the world, in which he represents the Word as acting such a conspicuous\npart. For why does he relate that God, in the creation of each of his\nworks, said, Let this or that be done, but that the unsearchable glory of\nGod may resplendently appear in his image? Captious and loquacious men\nwould readily evade this argument, by saying, that the _Word_ imports an\norder or command; but the Apostles are better interpreters, who declare,\nthat the worlds were created by the Son, and that he \u201cupholds all things\nby the word of his power.\u201d(194) For here we see that the _Word_ intends\nthe nod or mandate of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential\nSon of the Father. Nor, to the wise and sober, is there any obscurity in\nthat passage of Solomon, where he introduces Wisdom as begotten of the\nFather before time began, and presiding at the creation of the world, and\nover all the works of God. For, to pretend that this denotes some\ntemporary expression of the will of God, were foolish and frivolous;\nwhereas God then intended to discover his fixed and eternal counsel, and\neven something more secret. To the same purpose also is that assertion of\nChrist, \u201cMy Father worketh hitherto, and I work.\u201d(195) For, by affirming\nthat, from the beginning of the world, he had continually co\u00f6perated with\nthe Father, he makes a more explicit declaration of what had been briefly\nglanced at by Moses. We conclude, therefore, that God spake thus at the\ncreation, that the Word might have his part in the work, and so that\noperation be common to both. But John speaks more clearly than all others,\nwhen he represents _the Word_, who from the beginning _was God with God_,\nas in union with the Father, the original cause of all things. For to the\nWord he both attributes a real and permanent essence, and assigns some\npeculiar property; and plainly shows how God, by speaking, created the\nworld. Therefore, as all Divine revelations are justly entitled _the word\nof God_, so we ought chiefly to esteem that substantial Word the source of\nall revelations, who is liable to no variation, who remains with God\nperpetually one and the same, and who is God himself.\n\nVIII. Here we are interrupted by some clamorous objectors, who, since they\ncannot openly rob him of his divinity, secretly steal from him his\neternity. For they say, that the Word only began to exist, when God opened\nhis sacred mouth in the creation of the world. But they are too\ninconsiderate in imagining something new in the substance of God. For, as\nthose names of God, which relate to his external works, began to be\nascribed to him after the existence of those works, as when he is called\nthe Creator of heaven and earth, so piety neither acknowledges nor admits\nany name, signifying that God has found any thing new to happen to\nhimself. For, could any thing, from any quarter, effect a change in him,\nit would contradict the assertion of James, that \u201cevery good gift and\nevery perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of\nlights, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning.\u201d(196) Nothing,\nthen, is more intolerable, than to suppose a beginning of that Word, which\nwas always God, and afterwards the Creator of the world. But they argue,\nin their own apprehension most acutely, that Moses, by representing God as\nhaving then spoken for the first time, implies also, that there was no\nWord in him before; than which nothing is more absurd. For it is not to be\nconcluded, because any thing begins to be manifested at a certain time,\nthat it had no prior existence. I form a very different conclusion; that,\nsince, in the very instant when God said, \u201cLet there be light,\u201d(197) the\npower of the Word was clearly manifested, the Word must have existed long\nbefore. But if any one inquires, how long, he will find no beginning. For\nhe limits no certain period of time, when he himself says, \u201cO Father,\nglorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee\nbefore the world was.\u201d(198) Nor is this omitted by John; for, before he\ndescends to the creation of the world, he declares that the Word \u201cwas in\nthe beginning with God.\u201d(199) We therefore conclude again, that the Word,\nconceived of God before time began, perpetually remained with him, which\nproves his eternity, his true essence, and his divinity.\n\nIX. Though I advert not yet to the person of the Mediator, but defer it to\nthat part of the work which will relate to redemption, yet, since it\nought, without controversy, to be believed by all, that Christ is the very\nsame Word clothed in flesh, any testimonies which assert the Deity of\nChrist, will be very properly introduced here. When it is said, in the\nforty\u2010fifth Psalm, \u201cThy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,\u201d the Jews\nendeavour to evade its force, by pleading that the name Elohim is\napplicable also to angels, and to men of dignity and power. But there\ncannot be found in the Scripture a similar passage, which erects an\neternal throne for a creature; for he is not merely called God, but is\nalso declared to possess an eternal dominion. Besides, this title is never\ngiven to a creature, without some addition, as when it is said that Moses\nshould be \u201ca god to Pharaoh.\u201d(200) Some read it in the genitive case, \u201cThy\nthrone is of God,\u201d which is extremely insipid. I confess, indeed, that\nwhat is eminently and singularly excellent, is frequently called Divine;\nbut it sufficiently appears from the context, that such a meaning would be\nuncouth and forced, and totally inapplicable here. But, if their\nperverseness refuse to yield this point, there certainly is no obscurity\nin Isaiah, where he introduces Christ as God, and as crowned with supreme\npower, which is the prerogative of God alone. \u201cHis name,\u201d says he, \u201cshall\nbe called the Mighty God, the Father of eternity,\u201d &c.(201) Here also the\nJews object, and invert the reading of the passage in this manner: \u201cThis\nis the name by which the mighty God, the Father of eternity, shall call\nhim,\u201d &c.; so that they would leave the Son only the title of Prince of\npeace. But to what purpose would so many epithets be accumulated in this\npassage on God the Father, when the design of the prophet is to\ndistinguish Christ by such eminent characters as may establish our faith\nin him? Wherefore, there can be no doubt that he is there denominated the\nMighty God, just as, a little before, he is called Immanuel. But nothing\ncan be required plainer than a passage in Jeremiah, that this should be\nthe name whereby the Branch of David shall be called \u201cJehovah our\nrighteousness.\u201d(202) For since the Jews themselves teach, that all other\nnames of God are mere epithets, but that this alone, which they call\nineffable, is a proper name expressive of his Essence, we conclude, that\nthe Son is the one eternal God, who declares, in another place, that he\n\u201cwill not give his glory to another.\u201d(203) This also they endeavour to\nevade, because Moses imposed this name on an altar which he built, and\nEzekiel on the city of the new Jerusalem. But who does not perceive, that\nthe altar was erected as a monument of Moses having been exalted by God,\nand that Jerusalem is honoured with the name of God, only as a testimony\nof the Divine presence? For thus speaks the prophet: \u201cThe name of the city\nshall be, Jehovah is there.\u201d(204) But Moses expresses himself thus: He\n\u201cbuilt an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah\u2010nissi,\u201d (my\nexaltation.)(205) But there is more contention about another passage of\nJeremiah, where the same title is given to Jerusalem in these words: \u201cThis\nis the name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah our\nrighteousness.\u201d(206) But this testimony is so far from opposing the truth\nwhich we are defending, that it rather confirms it. For, having before\ntestified that Christ is the true Jehovah, from whom righteousness\nproceeds, he now pronounces that the church will have such a clear\napprehension of it, as to be able to glory in the same name. In the former\nplace, then, is shown the original cause of righteousness, in the latter\nthe effect.\n\nX. Now, if these things do not satisfy the Jews, I see not by what cavils\nthey can evade the accounts of Jehovah having so frequently appeared in\nthe character of an angel. An angel is said to have appeared to the holy\nfathers. He claims for himself the name of the eternal God. If it be\nobjected, that this is spoken with regard to the character which he\nsustains, this by no means removes the difficulty. For a servant would\nnever rob God of his honour, by permitting sacrifice to be offered to\nhimself. But the angel, refusing to eat bread, commands a sacrifice to be\noffered to Jehovah. He afterwards demonstrates that he is really Jehovah\nhimself. Therefore Manoah and his wife conclude, from this evidence, that\nthey have seen, not a mere angel, but God himself. Hence he says, \u201cWe\nshall surely die, because we have seen God.\u201d When his wife replies, \u201cIf\nthe Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have received\u201d a sacrifice\n\u201cat our hands,\u201d(207) she clearly acknowledges him to be God, who before is\ncalled an angel. Moreover, the reply of the angel himself removes every\ndoubt: \u201cWhy askest thou after my name, seeing it is wonderful?\u201d So much\nthe more detestable is the impiety of Servetus, in asserting that God\nnever appeared to Abraham and the other patriarchs, but that they\nworshipped an angel in his stead. But the orthodox doctors of the church\nhave truly and wisely understood and taught, that the same chief angel was\nthe Word of God, who even then began to perform some services introductory\nto his execution of the office of Mediator. For though he was not yet\nincarnate, he descended, as it were, in a mediatorial capacity, that he\nmight approach the faithful with greater familiarity. His familiar\nintercourse with men gave him the name of an angel; yet he still retained\nwhat properly belonged to him, and continued the ineffably glorious God.\nThe same truth is attested by Hosea, who, after relating the wrestling of\nJacob with an angel, says, \u201cThe Lord (Jehovah) God of hosts; Jehovah is\nhis memorial.\u201d(208) Servetus again cavils, that God employed the person of\nan angel; as though the prophet did not confirm what had been delivered by\nMoses,\u2014\u201cWherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?\u201d And the\nconfession of the holy patriarch, when he says, \u201cI have seen God face to\nface,\u201d(209) sufficiently declares, that he was not a created angel, but\none in whom resided the fulness of Deity. Hence, also, the representation\nof Paul, that Christ was the conductor of the people in the wilderness;\nbecause, though the time of his humiliation was not yet arrived, the\neternal Word then exhibited a type of the office to which he was\nappointed. Now, if the second chapter of Zechariah be strictly and coolly\nexamined, the angel who sends another angel is immediately pronounced the\nGod of hosts, and supreme power is ascribed to him. I omit testimonies\ninnumerable on which our faith safely rests, although they have little\ninfluence on the Jews. For when it is said in Isaiah, \u201cLo, this is our\nGod; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is Jehovah;\u201d(210)\nall who have eyes may perceive that this is God, who arises for the\nsalvation of his people. And the emphatical repetition of these pointed\nexpressions forbids an application of this passage to any other than to\nChrist. But still more plain and decisive is a passage of Malachi, where\nhe prophesies, that \u201cthe Lord, who was then sought, should come into his\ntemple.\u201d(211) The temple was exclusively consecrated to the one Most High\nGod; yet the prophet claims it as belonging to Christ. Whence it follows,\nthat he is the same God that was always worshipped among the Jews.\n\nXI. The New Testament abounds with innumerable testimonies. We must,\ntherefore, endeavour briefly to select a few, rather than to collect them\nall. Though the Apostles spake of him after he had appeared in flesh as\nthe Mediator, yet all that I shall adduce will be adapted to prove his\neternal Deity. In the first place, it is worthy of particular observation,\nthat the apostle represents those things which were predicted concerning\nthe eternal God, as either already exhibited in Christ, or to be\naccomplished in him at some future period. The prediction of Isaiah, that\nthe Lord of Hosts would be \u201cfor a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of\noffence to both the houses of Israel,\u201d(212) Paul asserts to have been\nfulfilled in Christ.(213) Therefore he declares, that Christ is the Lord\nof Hosts. There is a similar instance in another place: \u201cWe shall all\nstand,\u201d says he, \u201cbefore the judgment\u2010seat of Christ. For it is written,\nAs I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue\nshall confess to God.\u201d(214) Since God, in Isaiah,(215) declares this\nconcerning himself, and Christ actually exhibits it in his own person, it\nfollows, that he is that very God, whose glory cannot be transferred to\nanother. The apostle\u2019s quotation from the Psalms also, in his Epistle to\nthe Ephesians, is evidently applicable to none but God: \u201cWhen he ascended\nup on high, he led captivity captive:\u201d(216) understanding that ascension\nto have been prefigured by the exertions of the Divine power in the signal\nvictories of David over the heathen nations, he signifies, that the text\nwas more fully accomplished in Christ. Thus John attests that it was the\nglory of the Son which was revealed in a vision to Isaiah; whereas the\nprophet himself records that he saw the majesty of God.(217) And those\npraises which the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ascribes to the\nSon, beyond all doubt most evidently belong to God: \u201cThou, Lord, in the\nbeginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the\nworks of thine hands,\u201d &c. Again, \u201cLet all the angels of God worship\nhim.\u201d(218) Nor is it any misapplication of them, when he refers them to\nChrist; since all that is predicted in those Psalms has been accomplished\nonly by him. For it was He who arose and had mercy upon Zion; it was He\nwho claimed as his own the dominion over all nations and islands. And why\nshould John, after having affirmed, at the commencement of his\nGospel,(219) that the Word was always God, have hesitated to attribute to\nChrist the majesty of God? And why should Paul have been afraid to place\nChrist on the tribunal of God,(220) after having so publicly preached his\nDivinity, when he called him \u201cGod blessed for ever?\u201d(221) And, to show how\nconsistent he is with himself on this subject, he says, also, that \u201cGod\nwas manifest in the flesh.\u201d(222) If he is \u201cGod blessed for ever,\u201d he is\nthe same to whom this apostle, in another place, affirms all glory and\nhonour to be due. And he conceals not, but openly proclaims, that, \u201cbeing\nin the form of God,\u201d he \u201cthought it not robbery to be equal with God, but\nmade himself of no reputation.\u201d(223) And, lest the impious might object,\nthat he is a sort of artificial God, John goes further, and affirms, that\n\u201cThis is the true God, and eternal life;\u201d(224) although we ought to be\nfully satisfied by his being called God, especially by a witness who\nexpressly avers that there are no more gods than one; I mean Paul, who\nsays, \u201cthough there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in\nearth; to us there is but one God, of whom are all things.\u201d(225) When we\nhear, from the same mouth, that \u201cGod was manifested in the flesh,\u201d that\n\u201cGod hath purchased the Church with his own blood,\u201d\u2014why do we imagine a\nsecond God, whom he by no means acknowledges? And there is no doubt that\nall the pious were of the same opinion. Thomas, likewise, by publicly\nconfessing him to be \u201chis Lord and God,\u201d declares him to be the same true\nGod whom he had always worshipped.(226)\n\nXII. If we judge of his Divinity from the works which the Scriptures\nattribute to him, it will thence appear with increasing evidence. For when\nhe said, that he had, from the beginning, continually co\u00f6perated with the\nFather, the Jews, stupid as they were about his other declarations, yet\nperceived, that he assumed to himself Divine power; and, therefore, as\nJohn informs us, they \u201csought the more to kill him; because he not only\nhad broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making\nhimself equal with God.\u201d(227) How great, then, must be our stupidity, if\nwe perceive not this passage to be a plain assertion of his Divinity! To\npreside over the world by his almighty providence, and to govern all\nthings by the rod of his own power, (which the Apostle attributes to\nhim,)(228) belongs exclusively to the Creator. And he participates with\nthe Father, not only in the government of the world, but also in all other\noffices, which cannot be communicated to creatures. The Lord proclaims, by\nthe prophet, \u201cI, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions, for\nmine own sake.\u201d(229) According to this declaration, when the Jews thought\nthat Christ committed an injury against God, by undertaking to forgive\nsins,(230) he not only asserted in express terms, that this power belonged\nto him, but proved it by a miracle. We see, therefore, that he hath not\nthe ministry, but the power of remission of sins, which the Lord declares\nshall never be transferred from himself to another. Is it not the\nprerogative of God alone to examine and penetrate the secret thoughts of\nthe heart? Yet Christ possessed that power; which is a proof of his\nDivinity.\n\nXIII. But with what perspicuity of evidence does it appear in his\nmiracles! Though I grant that the Prophets and Apostles performed miracles\nsimilar and equal to his, yet there is a considerable difference in this\nrespect, that they, in their ministry, dispensed the favours of God,\nwhereas his miracles were performed by his exertions of his own power. He\nsometimes, indeed, used prayer, that he might glorify the Father; but, in\nmost instances, we perceive the manifest displays of his own power. And\nhow should not he be the true author of miracles, who, by his own\nauthority, committed the dispensation of them to others? For the\nEvangelists relate, that he gave his Apostles power to raise the dead, to\nheal the leprous, to cast out devils, &c.(231) And they performed that\nministry in such a manner, as plainly to discover, that the power\nproceeded solely from Christ. \u201cIn the name of Jesus Christ,\u201d says Peter,\n\u201carise and walk.\u201d(232) It is no wonder, therefore, that Christ should\nbring forward his miracles,(233) to convince the incredulity of the Jews,\nsince, being performed by his own power, they afforded most ample evidence\nof his Divinity. Besides, if out of God there be no salvation, no\nrighteousness, no life, but Christ contains all these things in himself,\nit certainly demonstrates him to be God. Let it not be objected, that life\nand salvation are infused into him by God; for he is not said to have\nreceived salvation, but to be himself salvation. And if no one be good but\nGod alone,(234) how can he be a mere man who is, I will not say good and\nrighteous, but goodness and righteousness itself? Even from the beginning\nof the creation, according to the testimony of an Evangelist, \u201cin him was\nlife; and the life\u201d then existed as \u201cthe light of men.\u201d Supported by such\nproofs, therefore, we venture to repose our faith and hope on him; whereas\nwe know that it is impious and sacrilegious for any man to place his\nconfidence in creatures. He says, \u201cYe believe in God, believe also in\nme.\u201d(235) And in this sense Paul interprets two passages of\nIsaiah\u2014\u201cWhosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.\u201d Again, \u201cThere\nshall be a root of Jesse, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in\nhim shall the Gentiles trust.\u201d(236) And why should we search for more\ntestimonies from Scripture, when this declaration occurs so frequently,\n\u201cHe that believeth on me hath everlasting life\u201d?(237) The invocation,\narising from faith, is also directed to him; which, nevertheless,\npeculiarly belongs, if any thing peculiarly belongs, to the Divine\nmajesty. For a prophet says, \u201cWhosoever shall call on the name of the Lord\n(Jehovah) shall be delivered.\u201d(238) And Solomon, \u201cThe name of the Lord is\na strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.\u201d(239) But the\nname of Christ is invoked for salvation: it follows, therefore, that he is\nJehovah. Moreover, we have an example of such invocation in Stephen, when\nhe says, \u201cLord Jesus, receive my spirit.\u201d(240) And afterwards in the whole\nChurch, as Ananias testifies in the same book: \u201cLord, I have heard by many\nof this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints\u2014that call on thy\nname.\u201d(241) And to make it more clearly understood, that \u201call the fulness\nof the Godhead dwelleth bodily in Christ,\u201d the Apostle confesses that he\nhad introduced among the Corinthians no other doctrine than the knowledge\nof him, and that this had been the only subject of his preaching.(242)\nWhat a remarkable and important consideration is it, that the name of the\nSon only is preached to us, whereas God commands us to glory in the\nknowledge of himself alone!(243) Who can dare to assert that he is a mere\ncreature, the knowledge of whom is our only glory? It must also be\nremarked, that the salutations prefixed to the epistles of Paul implore\nthe same blessings from the Son as from the Father; whence we learn, not\nonly that those things, which our heavenly Father bestows, are obtained\nfor us by his intercession, but that the Son, by a communion of power, is\nhimself the author of them. This practical knowledge is unquestionably\nmore certain and solid than any idle speculation. For then the pious mind\nhas the nearest view of the Divine presence, and almost touches it, when\nit experiences itself to be quickened, illuminated, saved, justified, and\nsanctified.\n\nXIV. Wherefore the proof of the Deity of the Spirit must be derived\nprincipally from the same sources. There is no obscurity in the testimony\nof Moses, in the history of the creation, that the Spirit of God was\nexpanded on the abyss or chaos;(244) for it signifies, not only that the\nbeautiful state of the world which we now behold owes its preservation to\nthe power of the Spirit, but that, previously to its being thus adorned,\nthe Spirit was engaged in brooding over the confused mass. The declaration\nof Isaiah bids defiance to all cavils: \u201cAnd now the Lord God, and his\nSpirit, hath sent me.\u201d(245) For the Holy Spirit is united in the exercise\nof supreme power in the mission of Prophets, which is a proof of his\nDivine majesty. But the best confirmation, as I have remarked, we shall\nderive from familiar experience. For what the Scriptures ascribe to him,\nand what we ourselves learn by the certain experience of piety, is not at\nall applicable to any creature. For it is he who, being universally\ndiffused, sustains and animates all things in heaven and in earth. And\nthis very thing excludes him from the number of creatures, that he is\ncircumscribed by no limits, but transfuses through all his own vigorous\ninfluence, to inspire them with being, life, and motion: this is clearly a\nwork of Deity. Again, if regeneration to an incorruptible life be more\nimportant and excellent than any present life, what must we think of him\nfrom whose power it proceeds? But the Scripture teaches, in various\nplaces, that he is the author of regeneration by a power not derived, but\nproperly his own; and not of regeneration only, but likewise of the future\nimmortality. Finally, to him, as well as to the Son, are applied all those\noffices which are peculiar to Deity. For he \u201csearcheth even the deep\nthings of God,\u201d(246) who admits no creature to a share in his councils. He\nbestows wisdom and the faculty of speech;(247) whereas the Lord declares\nto Moses, that this can only be done by himself.(248) So through him we\nattain to a participation of God, to feel his vivifying energy upon us.\nOur justification is his work. From him proceed power, sanctification,\ntruth, grace, and every other blessing we can conceive; since there is but\none Spirit, from whom every kind of gifts descends. For this passage of\nPaul is worthy of particular attention: \u201cThere are diversities of gifts,\nand there are differences of administrations, but the same Spirit;\u201d(249)\nbecause it represents him, not only as the principle and source of them,\nbut also as the author; which is yet more clearly expressed a little after\nin these words: \u201cAll these worketh that only and the self\u2010same Spirit,\ndividing to every man severally as he will.\u201d For if he were not a\nsubsistence in the Deity, judgment and voluntary determination would never\nbe ascribed to him. Paul, therefore, very clearly attributes to the Spirit\nDivine power, and thereby demonstrates him to be an hypostasis or\nsubsistence in God.\n\nXV. Nor does the Scripture, when it speaks of him, refrain from giving him\nthe appellation of God. For Paul concludes that we are the temple of God,\nbecause his Spirit dwelleth in us.(250) This must not be passed over\nwithout particular notice; for the frequent promises of God, that he will\nchoose us for a temple for himself, receive no other accomplishment, than\nby the inhabitation of his Spirit in us. Certainly, as Augustine\nexcellently observes, \u201cIf we were commanded to erect to the Spirit a\ntemple of wood and stone, forasmuch as God is the sole object of worship,\nit would be a clear proof of his Divinity; how much clearer, then, is the\nproof, now that we are commanded, not to erect one, but to be ourselves\nhis temples!\u201d And the Apostle calls us sometimes the temple of God, and\nsometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, both in the same signification.\nPeter, reprehending Ananias for having \u201clied to the Holy Ghost,\u201d told him\nthat he had \u201cnot lied unto men, but unto God.\u201d(251) And where Isaiah(252)\nintroduces the Lord of hosts as the speaker, Paul(253) informs us that it\nis the Holy Spirit who speaks. Indeed, while the Prophets invariably\ndeclare, that the words which they utter are those of the Lord of hosts,\nChrist and the Apostles refer them to the Holy Spirit; whence it follows,\nthat he is the true Jehovah, who is the primary author of the prophecies.\nAgain, God complains that his anger was provoked by the perverseness of\nthe people; Isaiah, in reference to the same conduct, says, that \u201cthey\nvexed his Holy Spirit.\u201d(254) Lastly, if blasphemy against the Spirit be\nnot forgiven, either in this world or in that which is to come,(255)\nwhilst a man may obtain pardon who has been guilty of blasphemy against\nthe Son, this is an open declaration of his Divine majesty, to defame or\ndegrade which is an inexpiable crime. I intentionally pass over many\ntestimonies which were used by the fathers. To them there appeared much\nplausibility in citing this passage from David, \u201cBy the word of the Lord\nwere the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his\nmouth;\u201d(256) to prove that the creation of the world was the work of the\nHoly Spirit, as well as of the Son. But since a repetition of the same\nthing twice is common in the Psalms, and in Isaiah \u201cthe spirit of his\nmouth\u201d means the same as \u201chis word,\u201d this is but a weak argument.\nTherefore I have determined to confine myself to a sober statement of\nthose evidences on which pious minds may satisfactorily rest.\n\nXVI. As God afforded a clearer manifestation of himself at the advent of\nChrist, the three Persons also then became better known. Among many\ntestimonies, let us be satisfied with this one: Paul connects together\nthese three, Lord, Faith, and Baptism,(257) in such a manner as to reason\nfrom one to another. Since there is but one faith, hence he proves that\nthere is but one Lord; since there is but one baptism, he shows that there\nis also but one faith. Therefore, if we are initiated by baptism into the\nfaith and religion of one God, we must necessarily suppose him to be the\ntrue God, into whose name we are baptized. Nor can it be doubted but that\nin this solemn commission, \u201cBaptize them in the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\u201d Christ intended to testify, that the\nperfect light of faith was now exhibited. For this is equivalent to being\nbaptized into the name of the one God, who hath clearly manifested himself\nin the Father, Son, and Spirit; whence it evidently appears, that in the\nDivine Essence there exist three Persons, in whom is known the one God.\nAnd truly, since faith ought not to be looking about hither and thither,\nor to be wandering through the varieties of inconstancy, but to direct its\nviews towards the one God, to be fixed on him, and to adhere to him,\u2014it\nmay easily be proved from these premises, that, if there be various kinds\nof faith, there must also be a plurality of gods. Baptism, being a\nsacrament of faith, confirms to us the unity of God, because it is but\none. Hence, also, we conclude, that it is not lawful to be baptized,\nexcept into the name of the one God; because we embrace the faith of him,\ninto whose name we are baptized. What, then, was intended by Christ, when\nhe commanded baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but that one faith ought to be exercised\nin the Father, Son, and Spirit? and what is that but a clear testimony,\nthat the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are the one God? Therefore,\nsince it is an undeniable truth, that there is one God, and only one, we\nconclude the Word and Spirit to be no other than the very Essence of the\nDeity. The greatest degree of folly was betrayed by the Arians, who\nconfessed the Divinity of the Son, but denied him to possess the substance\nof God. Nor were the Macedonians free from a similar delusion, who would\nexplain the term \u201cSpirit\u201d to mean only the gifts of grace conferred upon\nman. For as wisdom, understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of\nthe Lord, proceed from him, so he alone is the Spirit of wisdom, prudence,\nfortitude, and piety. Nor is he himself divided according to the\ndistribution of his graces; but, as the Apostle declares, how variously\nsoever they are divided, he always remains one and the same.(258)\n\nXVII. On the other hand, also, we find in the Scriptures a distinction\nbetween the Father and the Word, between the Word and the Spirit; in the\ndiscussion of which the magnitude of the mystery reminds us that we ought\nto proceed with the utmost reverence and sobriety. I am exceedingly\npleased with this observation of Gregory Nazianzen: \u201cI cannot think of the\n_one_, but I am immediately surrounded with the splendour of the _three_;\nnor can I clearly discover the _three_, but I am suddenly carried back to\nthe _one_.\u201d Wherefore let us not imagine such a trinity of Persons, as\nincludes an idea of separation, or does not immediately recall us to the\nunity. The names of Father, Son, and Spirit, certainly imply a real\ndistinction; let no one suppose them to be mere epithets, by which God is\nvariously designated from his works; but it is a distinction, not a\ndivision. The passages already cited show, that the Son has a property, by\nwhich he is distinguished from the Father; because the Word had not been\nwith God, or had his glory with the Father, unless he had been distinct\nfrom him. He likewise distinguishes the Father from himself, when he says,\n\u201cthat there is another that beareth witness of him.\u201d(259) And to the same\neffect is what is declared in another place, that the Father created all\nthings by the Word; which he could not have done, unless he had been in\nsome sense distinct from him. Besides, the Father descended not to the\nearth, but he who came forth from the Father. The Father neither died nor\nrose again, but he who was sent by the Father. Nor did this distinction\ncommence at the incarnation, but it is evident, that, before that period,\nhe was the only begotten in the bosom of the Father.(260) For who can\nundertake to assert, that the Son first entered into the bosom of the\nFather, when he descended from heaven to assume a human nature? He,\ntherefore, was in the bosom of the Father before, and possessed his glory\nwith the Father. The distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father is\nannounced by Christ, when he says, that he \u201cproceedeth from the\nFather.\u201d(261) But how often does he represent him as another, distinct\nfrom himself! as when he promises that \u201canother Comforter\u201d(262) should be\nsent, and in many other places.\n\nXVIII. I doubt the propriety of borrowing similitudes from human things,\nto express the force of this distinction. The fathers sometimes practise\nthis method; but they likewise confess the great disproportion of all the\nsimilitudes which they introduce. Wherefore I greatly dread, in this\ninstance, every degree of presumption; lest the introduction of any thing\nunseasonable should afford an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of\nerror to the ignorant. Yet it is not right to be silent on the distinction\nwhich we find expressed in the Scriptures; which is this\u2014that to the\nFather is attributed the principle of action, the fountain and source of\nall things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the arrangement of all\noperations; and the power and efficacy of the action is assigned to the\nSpirit. Moreover, though eternity belongs to the Father, and to the Son\nand Spirit also, since God can never have been destitute of his wisdom or\nhis power, and in eternity we must not inquire after any thing prior or\nposterior,\u2014yet the observation of order is not vain or superfluous, while\nthe Father is mentioned as first; in the next place the Son, as from him;\nand then the Spirit, as from both. For the mind of every man naturally\ninclines to the consideration, first, of God; secondly, of the wisdom\nemanating from him; and lastly, of the power by which he executes the\ndecrees of his wisdom. For this reason the Son is said to be from the\nFather, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son; and that in\nvarious places, but nowhere more clearly than in the eighth chapter of the\nEpistle to the Romans, where the same Spirit is indifferently denominated\n\u201cthe Spirit of Christ,\u201d and \u201cthe Spirit of him that raised up Christ from\nthe dead,\u201d and that without any impropriety. For Peter also testifies that\nit was the Spirit of Christ by whom the prophets prophesied;(263) whereas\nthe Scripture so frequently declares that it was the Spirit of God the\nFather.\n\nXIX. This distinction is so far from opposing the most absolute simplicity\nand unity of the Divine Being, that it affords a proof that the Son is one\nGod with the Father, because he has the same Spirit with him; and that the\nSpirit is not a different substance from the Father and the Son, because\nhe is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For the whole nature is in\neach hypostasis, and each has something peculiar to himself. The Father is\nentirely in the Son, and the Son entirely in the Father, according to his\nown declaration, \u201cI am in the Father, and the Father in me;\u201d(264) nor do\necclesiastical writers allow that one is divided from the other by any\ndifference of essence. \u201cThese distinctive appellations,\u201d says Augustine,\n\u201cdenote their reciprocal relations to each other, and not the substance\nitself, which is but one.\u201d This explanation may serve to reconcile the\nopinions of the fathers, which would otherwise appear totally repugnant to\neach other. For sometimes they state that the Son originates from the\nFather, and at other times assert that he has essential Divinity from\nhimself, and so is, together with the Father, the one first cause of all.\nAugustine, in another place, admirably and perspicuously explains the\ncause of this diversity, in the following manner: \u201cChrist, considered in\nhimself, is called God; but with relation to the Father, he is called the\nSon.\u201d And again, \u201cThe Father, considered in himself, is called God; but\nwith relation to the Son, he is called the Father. He who, with relation\nto the Son, is called the Father, is not the Son; he who, with relation to\nthe Father, is called the Son, is not the Father; they who are severally\ncalled the Father and the Son, are the same God.\u201d Therefore, when we speak\nsimply of the Son, without reference to the Father, we truly and properly\nassert him to be self\u2010existent, and therefore call him the sole first\ncause; but, when we distinctly treat of the relation between him and the\nFather, we justly represent him as originating from the Father. The first\nbook of Augustine on the Trinity is entirely occupied with the explication\nof this subject; and it is far more safe to rest satisfied with that\nrelation which he states, than by curiously penetrating into the sublime\nmystery, to wander through a multitude of vain speculations.\n\nXX. Therefore, let such as love sobriety, and will be contented with the\nmeasure of faith, briefly attend to what is useful to be known; which is,\nthat, when we profess to believe in one God, the word _God_ denotes a\nsingle and simple essence, in which we comprehend three Persons, or\nhypostases; and that, therefore, whenever the word _God_ is used\nindefinitely, the Son and Spirit are intended as much as the Father; but\nwhen the Son is associated with the Father, that introduces the reciprocal\nrelation of one to the other; and thus we distinguish between the Persons.\nBut, since the peculiar properties of the Persons produce a certain order,\nso that the original cause is in the Father, whenever the Father and the\nSon or Spirit are mentioned together, the name of God is peculiarly\nascribed to the Father: by this method the unity of the essence is\npreserved, and the order is retained; which, however, derogates nothing\nfrom the Deity of the Son and Spirit. And indeed, as we have already seen\nthat the Apostles assert him to be the Son of God, whom Moses and the\nProphets have represented as Jehovah, it is always necessary to recur to\nthe unity of the essence. Wherefore it would be a detestable sacrilege for\nus to call the Son another God different from the Father; because the\nsimple name of God admits of no relation; nor can God, with respect to\nhimself, be denominated either the one or the other. Now, that the name\n\u201cJehovah,\u201d in an indefinite sense, is applicable to Christ, appears even\nfrom the words of Paul: \u201cfor this thing I besought the Lord thrice;\u201d(265)\nbecause, after relating the answer of Christ, \u201cMy grace is sufficient for\nthee,\u201d he immediately subjoins, \u201cThat the power of Christ may rest upon\nme.\u201d For it is certain that the word \u201cLord\u201d is there used for \u201cJehovah;\u201d\nand to restrict it to the person of the Mediator, would be frivolous and\npuerile, since it is an absolute declaration, containing no comparison\nbetween the Son and the Father. And we know that the Apostles, following\nthe custom of the Greek translators, invariably use the word \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n(Lord,) instead of Jehovah. And, not to seek far for an example of this,\nPaul prayed to the Lord in no other sense than is intended in a passage of\nJoel, cited by Peter: \u201cWhosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall\nbe saved.\u201d(266) But for the peculiar ascription of this name to the Son,\nanother reason will be given in its proper place; suffice it at present to\nobserve that, when Paul had prayed to God absolutely, he immediately\nsubjoins the name of Christ. Thus also the whole Deity is by Christ\nhimself denominated \u201ca Spirit.\u201d For nothing opposes the spirituality of\nthe whole Divine essence, in which are comprehended the Father, the Son,\nand the Spirit; which is plain from the Scripture. For as we there find\nGod denominated a Spirit, so we find also the Holy Spirit, forasmuch as he\nis an hypostasis of the whole essence, represented both as the Spirit of\nGod, and as proceeding from God.\n\nXXI. But since Satan, in order to subvert the very foundations of our\nfaith, has always been exciting great contentions concerning the Divine\nessence of the Son and Spirit, and the distinction of the Persons; and in\nalmost all ages has instigated impious spirits to vex the orthodox\nteachers on this account; and is also endeavouring, in the present day,\nwith the old embers, to kindle a new flame; it becomes necessary here to\nrefute the perverse and fanciful notions which some persons have imbibed.\nHitherto it has been our principal design to instruct the docile, and not\nto combat the obstinate and contentious: but now, having calmly explained\nand proved the truth, we must vindicate it from all the cavils of the\nwicked; although I shall make it my principal study, that those who\nreadily and implicitly attend to the Divine word, may have stable ground\non which they may confidently rest. On this, indeed, if on any of the\nsecret mysteries of the Scripture, we ought to philosophize with great\nsobriety and moderation; and also with extreme caution, lest either our\nideas or our language should proceed beyond the limits of the Divine word.\nFor how can the infinite essence of God be defined by the narrow capacity\nof the human mind, which could never yet certainly determine the nature of\nthe body of the sun, though the object of our daily contemplation? How can\nthe human mind, by its own efforts, penetrate into an examination of the\nessence of God, when it is totally ignorant of its own? Wherefore let us\nfreely leave to God the knowledge of himself. For \u201che alone,\u201d as Hilary\nsays, \u201cis a competent witness for himself, being only known by himself.\u201d\nAnd we shall certainly leave it to him, if our conceptions of him\ncorrespond to the manifestations which he has given us of himself, and our\ninquiries concerning him are confined to his word. There are extant on\nthis argument five homilies of Chrysostom against the Anom\u0153i; which,\nhowever, were not sufficient to restrain the presumptuous garrulity of\nthose sophists. For they discovered no greater modesty in this instance\nthan in every other. The very unhappy consequences of this temerity should\nwarn us to study this question with more docility than subtlety, and not\nallow ourselves to investigate God any where but in his sacred word, or to\nform any ideas of him but such as are agreeable to his word, or to speak\nany thing concerning him but what is derived from the same word. But if\nthe distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, in the one Deity, as it is not\neasy to be comprehended, occasions some understandings more labour and\ntrouble than is desirable, let them remember that the mind of man, when it\nindulges its curiosity, enters into a labyrinth; and let them submit to be\nguided by the heavenly oracles, however they may not comprehend the height\nof this mystery.\n\nXXII. To compose a catalogue of the errors, by which the purity of the\nfaith has been attacked on this point of doctrine, would be too prolix and\ntedious, without being profitable; and most of the heretics so strenuously\nexerted themselves to effect the total extinction of the Divine glory by\ntheir gross reveries, that they thought it sufficient to unsettle and\ndisturb the inexperienced. From a few men there soon arose numerous sects,\nof whom some would divide the Divine essence, and others would confound\nthe distinction which subsists between the Persons. But if we maintain,\nwhat has already been sufficiently demonstrated from the Scripture, that\nthe essence of the one God, which pertains to the Father, to the Son, and\nto the Spirit, is simple and undivided, and, on the other hand, that the\nFather is, by some property, distinguished from the Son, and likewise the\nSon from the Spirit, the gate will be shut, not only against Arius and\nSabellius, but also against all the other ancient heresiarchs. But since\nour own times have witnessed some madmen, as Servetus and his followers,\nwho have involved every thing in new subtleties, a brief exposure of their\nfallacies will not be unuseful. The word _Trinity_ was so odious and even\ndetestable to Servetus, that he asserted all Trinitarians, as he called\nthem, to be Atheists. I omit his impertinent and scurrilous language, but\nthis was the substance of his speculations: That it is representing God as\nconsisting of three parts, when three Persons are said to subsist in his\nessence, and that this triad is merely imaginary, being repugnant to the\nDivine unity. At the same time, he maintained the Persons to be certain\nexternal ideas, which have no real subsistence in the Divine essence, but\ngive us a figurative representation of God, under this or the other form;\nand that in the beginning there was no distinction in God, because the\nWord was once the same as the Spirit; but that, after Christ appeared God\nof God, there emanated from him another God, even the Spirit. Though he\nsometimes glosses over his impertinencies with allegories, as when he\nsays, that the eternal Word of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and\nthe reflection of his image, and that the Spirit was a shadow of the\nDeity, yet he afterwards destroys the Deity of both, asserting that,\naccording to the mode of dispensation, there is a part of God in both the\nSon and the Spirit; just as the same Spirit, substantially diffused in us,\nand even in wood and stones, is a portion of the Deity. What he broached\nconcerning the Person of the Mediator, we shall examine in the proper\nplace. But this monstrous fiction, that a Divine Person is nothing but a\nvisible appearance of the glory of God, will not need a prolix refutation.\nFor when John pronounces that the Word (\u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) was God before the creation\nof the world, he sufficiently discriminates him from an ideal form. But if\nthen also, and from the remotest eternity, that Word (\u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) who was God,\nwas with the Father, and possessed his own glory with the Father, he\ncertainly could not be an external or figurative splendour; but it\nnecessarily follows, that he was a real hypostasis, subsisting in God\nhimself. But although no mention is made of the Spirit, but in the history\nof the creation of the world, yet he is there introduced, not as a shadow,\nbut as the essential power of God, since Moses relates that the chaotic\nmass was supported by him.(267) It then appeared, therefore, that the\neternal Spirit had always existed in the Deity, since he cherished and\nsustained the confused matter of the heaven and earth, till it attained a\nstate of beauty and order. He certainly could not then be an image or\nrepresentation of God, according to the dreams of Servetus. But in other\nplaces he is constrained to make a fuller disclosure of his impiety,\nsaying that God, in his eternal reason, decreeing for himself a visible\nSon, has visibly exhibited himself in this manner; for if this be true,\nthere is no other Divinity left to Christ, than as he has been appointed a\nSon by an eternal decree of God. Besides, he so transforms those\nphantasms, which he substitutes instead of the hypostases, that he\nhesitates not to imagine new accidents or properties in God. But the most\nexecrable blasphemy of all is, his promiscuous confusion of the Son of God\nand the Spirit with all the creatures. For he asserts that in the Divine\nessence there are parts and divisions, every portion of which is God; and\nespecially that the souls of the faithful are co\u00ebternal and consubstantial\nwith God; though in another place he assigns substantial Deity, not only\nto the human soul, but to all created things.\n\nXXIII. From the same corrupt source has proceeded another heresy, equally\nmonstrous. For some worthless men, to escape the odium and disgrace which\nattended the impious tenets of Servetus, have confessed, indeed, that\nthere are three Persons, but with this explanation, that the Father, who\nalone is truly and properly God, hath created the Son and Spirit, and\ntransfused his Deity into them. Nor do they refrain from this dreadful\nmanner of expressing themselves, that the Father is distinguished from the\nSon and Spirit, as being the sole possessor of the Divine essence. Their\nfirst plea in support of this notion is, that Christ is commonly called\nthe Son of God; whence they conclude that no other is properly God but the\nFather. But they observe not, that although the name of God is common also\nto the Son, yet that it is sometimes ascribed to the Father (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd)\nby way of eminence, because he is the fountain and original of the Deity;\nand this in order to denote the simple unity of the essence. They object,\nthat if he is truly the Son of God, it is absurd to account him the Son of\na Person. I reply, that both are true; that he is the Son of God, because\nhe is the Word begotten of the Father before time began, for we are not\nyet speaking of the Person of the Mediator; and to be explicit, we must\nnotice the Person, that the name of God may not be understood absolutely,\nbut for the Father; for if we acknowledge no other to be God than the\nFather, it will be a manifest degradation of the dignity of the Son.\nWhenever mention is made of the Deity, therefore, there must no opposition\nbe admitted between the Father and the Son, as though the name of the true\nGod belonged exclusively to the Father. For surely the God who appeared to\nIsaiah, was the only true God;(268) whom, nevertheless, John affirms to\nhave been Christ.(269) He likewise, who by the mouth of Isaiah declared\nthat he was to be a rock of offence to the Jews, was the only true\nGod;(270) whom Paul pronounces to have been Christ.(271) He who proclaims\nby Isaiah, \u201cAs I live, every knee shall bow to me,\u201d(272) is the only true\nGod; but Paul applies the same to Christ.(273) To the same purpose are the\ntestimonies recited by the Apostle\u2014\u201cThou, Lord, hast laid the foundation\nof the earth and the heavens;\u201d and \u201cLet all the angels of God worship\nhim.\u201d(274) These ascriptions belong only to the one true God; whereas he\ncontends that they are properly applied to Christ. Nor is there any force\nin that cavil, that what is proper to God is transferred to Christ,\nbecause he is the brightness of his glory. For, since the name Jehovah is\nused in each of these passages, it follows that in respect of his Deity he\nis self\u2010existent. For, if he is Jehovah, he cannot be denied to be the\nsame God, who in another place proclaims by Isaiah, \u201cI am the first and I\nam the last; and beside me there is no God.\u201d(275) That passage in Jeremiah\nalso deserves our attention\u2014\u201cThe gods that have not made the heavens and\nthe earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these\nheavens;\u201d(276) whilst, on the contrary, it must be acknowledged, that the\nDeity of the Son of God is frequently proved by Isaiah from the creation\nof the world. But how shall the Creator, who gives existence to all, not\nbe self\u2010existent, but derive his essence from another? For whoever asserts\nthat the Son owes his essence to the Father, denies him to be self\u2010\nexistent. But this is contradicted by the Holy Spirit, who gives him the\nname of Jehovah. Now, if we admit the whole essence to be solely in the\nFather, either it will be divisible, or it will be taken away from the\nSon; and so, being despoiled of his essence, he will be only a titular\ngod. The Divine essence, according to these triflers, belongs solely to\nthe Father, inasmuch as he alone possesses it, and is the author of the\nessence of the Son. Thus the Divinity of the Son will be a kind of\nemanation from the essence of God, or a derivation of a part from the\nwhole. Now, they must of necessity concede, from their own premises, that\nthe Spirit is the Spirit of the Father only; because if he be a derivation\nfrom the original essence, which belongs exclusively to the Father, he\ncannot be accounted the Spirit of the Son; which is refuted by the\ntestimony of Paul, where he makes him common to Christ and the Father.\nBesides, if the Person of the Father be expunged from the Trinity, wherein\nwill he differ from the Son and Spirit, but in being himself the sole\nDeity? They confess that Christ is God, and yet differs from the Father.\nSome distinctive character is necessary, also, to discriminate the Father\nfrom the Son. They who place this in the essence, manifestly destroy the\ntrue Deity of Christ, which cannot exist independently of the essence,\nthat is, of the entire essence. The Father certainly cannot differ from\nthe Son, unless he have something peculiar to himself, which is not common\nto the Son. What will they find, by which to distinguish him? If the\ndifference be in the essence, let them tell us whether he has communicated\nthe same to the Son. But this could not be done partially; for it would be\nan abomination to fabricate a demigod. Besides, this would miserably\ndismember the Divine essence. The necessary conclusion then is, that it is\nentirely and perfectly common to the Father and the Son. And if this be\ntrue, there cannot, in respect of the essence, be any difference between\nthem. If it be objected that the Father, notwithstanding this\ncommunication of his essence, remains the only God with whom the essence\ncontinues, then Christ must be a figurative god, a god in appearance and\nname only, not in reality; because nothing is more proper to God than to\nbe, according to that declaration, \u201cI AM hath sent me unto you.\u201d(277)\n\nXXIV. We might readily prove from many passages the falsehood of their\nassumption, that, whenever the name of God is mentioned absolutely in the\nScripture, it means only the Father. And in those places which they cite\nin their own defence, they shamefully betray their ignorance, since the\nSon is there added; from which it appears, that the name of God is used in\na relative sense, and therefore is particularly restricted to the Person\nof the Father. Their objection, that, unless the Father alone were the\ntrue God, he would himself be his own Father, is answered in a word. For\nthere is no absurdity in the name of God, for the sake of dignity and\norder, being peculiarly given to him, who not only hath begotten of\nhimself his own wisdom, but is also the God of the Mediator, of which I\nshall treat more at large in its proper place. For since Christ was\nmanifested in the flesh, he is called the Son of God, not only as he was\nthe eternal Word begotten of the Father before time began, but because he\nassumed the person and office of a Mediator, to unite us to God. And since\nthey so presumptuously exclude the Son from Divine honours, I would wish\nto be informed, when he declares that there is none good but the one\nGod,(278) whether he deprives himself of all goodness. I speak not of his\nhuman nature, lest they should object, that, whatever goodness it had, it\nwas gratuitously conferred on it. I demand whether the eternal Word of God\nbe good or not. If they answer in the negative, they are sufficiently\nconvicted of impiety; and if in the affirmative, they cut the throat of\ntheir own system. But though, at the first glance, Christ seems to deny\nhimself the appellation of good, he furnishes, notwithstanding, a further\nconfirmation of our opinion. For, as that is a title which peculiarly\nbelongs to the one God, forasmuch as he had been saluted as good, merely\naccording to a common custom, by his rejection of false honour, he\nsuggested that the goodness which he possessed was Divine. I demand, also,\nwhen Paul affirms that God alone is immortal, wise, and true,(279) whether\nhe thereby degrades Christ to the rank of those who are mortal, unwise,\nand false. Shall not he then be immortal who from the beginning was life\nitself, and the giver of immortality to angels? Shall not he be wise who\nis the eternal Wisdom of God? Shall not he be true who is truth itself? I\ndemand further, whether they think that Christ ought to be worshipped.\nFor, if he justly claims this as his right, that every knee should bow\nbefore him,(280) it follows that he is that God, who, in the law,\nprohibited the worship of any one but himself. If they will have this\npassage in Isaiah, \u201cI am, and there is no God besides me,\u201d to be\nunderstood solely of the Father, I retort this testimony on themselves;\nsince we see that whatever belongs to God is attributed to Christ. Nor is\nthere any room for their cavil, that Christ was exalted in the humanity in\nwhich he had been abased; and that, with regard to his humanity, all power\nwas given to him in heaven and in earth; because, although the regal and\njudicial majesty extends to the whole Person of the Mediator, yet, had he\nnot been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to\nsuch an eminence, without God being in opposition to himself. And Paul\nexcellently determines this controversy, by informing us that he was equal\nwith God, before he abased himself under the form of a servant.(281) Now,\nhow could this equality subsist, unless he had been that God whose name is\nJAH and JEHOVAH, who rides on the cherubim, whose kingdom is universal and\neverlasting? No clamour of theirs can deprive Christ of another\ndeclaration of Isaiah: \u201cLo, this is our God, we have waited for him;\u201d(282)\nsince in these words he describes the advent of God the Redeemer, not only\nfor the deliverance of the people from exile in Babylon, but also for the\ncomplete restoration of the church. Nor do they gain any thing by another\ncavil, that Christ was God in his Father. For although we confess, in\npoint of order and degree, that the Father is the fountain of the Deity,\nyet we pronounce it a detestable figment, that the essence belongs\nexclusively to the Father, as though he were the author of the Deity of\nthe Son; because, on this supposition, either the essence would be\ndivided, or Christ would be only a titular and imaginary god. If they\nadmit that the Son is God, but inferior to the Father, then in him the\nessence must be begotten and created, which in the Father is unbegotten\nand uncreated. I know that some scorners ridicule our concluding a\ndistinction of Persons from the words of Moses, where he introduces God\nthus speaking: \u201cLet us make man in our image.\u201d(283) Yet pious readers\nperceive how frigidly and foolishly Moses would have introduced this\nconference, if in one God there had not subsisted a plurality of Persons.\nNow, it is certain that they whom the Father addressed, were uncreated;\nbut there is nothing uncreated, except the one God himself. Now,\ntherefore, unless they grant that the power to create, and the authority\nto command, were common to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, it will\nfollow, that God did not speak thus within himself, but directed his\nconversation to some exterior agents. Lastly, one place will easily remove\ntheir two objections at once. For when Christ himself declares, that God\nis a Spirit, it would be unreasonable to restrict this solely to the\nFather, as though the Word were not also of a spiritual nature. But if the\nname of Spirit is equally as applicable to the Son as to the Father, I\nconclude that the Son is comprehended under the indefinite name of God.\nYet he immediately subjoins, that none are approved worshippers of the\nFather, but those who worship him in spirit and in truth.(284) Whence\nfollows another consequence, that, because Christ performs the office of a\nTeacher, in a station of inferiority, he ascribes the name of God to the\nFather, not to destroy his own Deity, but by degrees to raise us to the\nknowledge of it.\n\nXXV. But they deceive themselves in dreaming of three separate\nindividuals, each of them possessing a part of the Divine essence. We\nteach, according to the Scriptures, that there is essentially but one God;\nand, therefore, that the essence of both the Son and the Spirit is\nunbegotten. But since the Father is first in order, and hath of himself\nbegotten his wisdom, therefore, as has before been observed, he is justly\nesteemed the original and fountain of the whole Divinity. Thus God,\nindefinitely, is unbegotten; and the Father also is unbegotten with regard\nto his Person. They even foolishly suppose, that our opinion implies a\nquaternity; whereas they are guilty of falsehood and calumny, in ascribing\nto us a figment of their own; as though we pretended that the three\nPersons are as so many streams proceeding from one essence, when it is\nevident, from our writings, that we separate not the Persons from the\nessence, but, though they subsist in it, make a distinction between them.\nIf the persons were separated from the essence, there would perhaps be\nsome probability in their argument; but then there would be a trinity of\nGods, not a trinity of persons contained in one God. This solves their\nfrivolous question, whether the essence concurs to the formation of the\nTrinity; as though we imagined three Gods to descend from it. Their\nobjection, that then the Trinity would be without God, is equally\nimpertinent. Because, though it concurs not to the distinction as a part\nor member, yet the Persons are not independent of it, nor separate from\nit; for the Father, unless he were God, could not be the Father; and the\nSon is the Son only as he is God. Therefore we say, that the Deity is\nabsolutely self\u2010existent; whence we confess, also, that the Son, as God,\nindependently of the consideration of Person, is self\u2010existent; but as the\nSon, we say, that he is of the Father. Thus his essence is unoriginated;\nbut the origin of his Person is God himself. And, indeed, the orthodox\nwriters, who have written on the Trinity, have referred this name only to\nthe Persons; since to comprehend the essence in that distinction, were not\nonly an absurd error, but a most gross impiety. For it is evident that\nthose who maintain that the Trinity consists in a union of the Essence,\nthe Son, and the Spirit, annihilate the essence of the Son and of the\nSpirit; otherwise the parts would be destroyed by being confounded\ntogether; which is a fault in every distinction. Finally, if the words\n_Father_ and _God_ were synonymous\u2014if the Father were the author of the\nDeity\u2014nothing would be left in the Son but a mere shadow; nor would the\nTrinity be any other than a conjunction of the one God with two created\nthings.\n\nXXVI. Their objection, that Christ, if he be properly God, is not rightly\ncalled the Son of God, has already been answered; for when a comparison is\nmade between one Person and another, the word _God_ is not used\nindefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, as being the fountain of\nthe Deity, not with regard to the essence, as fanatics falsely pretend,\nbut in respect of order. This is the sense in which we ought to understand\nthat declaration of Christ to his Father: \u201cThis is life eternal, that they\nmight know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast\nsent.\u201d(285) For, speaking in the capacity of Mediator, he holds an\nintermediate station between God and men; yet without any diminution of\nhis majesty. For, although he abased himself, yet he lost not his glory\nwith the Father, which was hidden from the world. Thus the Apostle to the\nHebrews,(286) though he acknowledges that Christ was made for a short time\ninferior to the angels, yet, nevertheless, hesitates not to assert, that\nhe is the eternal God, who laid the foundation of the earth. We must\nremember, therefore, that whenever Christ, in the capacity of Mediator,\naddresses the Father, he comprehends, under the name of God, the Divinity\nwhich belongs also to himself. Thus, when he said to his Apostles, \u201cI go\nunto the Father, for my Father is greater than I,\u201d(287) he attributes not\nto himself a secondary Divinity, as if he were inferior to the Father with\nrespect to the eternal essence, but because, having obtained the glory of\nheaven, he gathers together the faithful to a participation of it with\nhim; he represents the Father to be in a station superior to himself, just\nas the illustrious perfection of the splendour which appears in heaven\nexcels that degree of glory which was visible in him during his incarnate\nstate. For the same reason, Paul says, in another place, that Christ\n\u201cshall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all\nin all.\u201d(288) Nothing would be more absurd than to deny perpetual duration\nto the Deity of Christ. Now, if he will never cease to be the Son of God,\nbut will remain for ever the same as he has been from the beginning, it\nfollows, that by the name _Father_ is intended the one sole Divine\nessence, which is common to them both. And it is certain that Christ\ndescended to us, in order that, exalting us to the Father, he might at the\nsame time exalt us to himself also, as being one with the Father. It is\ntherefore neither lawful nor right to restrict the name of God exclusively\nto the Father, and to deny it to the Son. For even on this very account\nJohn asserts him to be the true God,(289) that no one might suppose, that\nhe possessed only a secondary degree of Deity, inferior to the Father. And\nI wonder what can be the meaning of these fabricators of new gods, when,\nafter confessing that Christ is the true God, they immediately exclude him\nfrom the Deity of the Father; as though there could be any true God but\none alone, or as though a transfused Divinity were any thing but a novel\nfiction.\n\nXXVII. Their accumulation of numerous passages from Iren\u00e6us, where he\nasserts the Father of Christ to be the only and eternal God of Israel, is\na proof either of shameful ignorance, or of consummate wickedness. For\nthey ought to have considered, that that holy man was then engaged in a\ncontroversy with some madmen, who denied that the Father of Christ was the\nsame God that has spoken by Moses and the Prophets, but maintained that he\nwas I know not what sort of phantasm, produced from the corruption of the\nworld. His only object, therefore, is to show that no other God is\nrevealed in the Scripture than the Father of Christ, and that it is\nimpious to imagine any other; and therefore we need not wonder at his\nfrequently concluding, that there never was any other God of Israel than\nhe who was preached by Christ and his Apostles. So, now, on the other\nhand, when a different error is to be opposed, we shall truly assert, that\nthe God who appeared formerly to the patriarchs, was no other than Christ.\nIf it be objected that it was the Father, we are prepared to reply, that,\nwhile we contend for the Divinity of the Son, we by no means reject that\nof the Father. If the reader attends to this design of Iren\u00e6us, all\ncontention will cease. Moreover, the whole controversy is easily decided\nby the sixth chapter of the third book, where the good man insists on this\none point: That he who is absolutely and indefinitely called God in the\nScripture, is the only true God; but that the name of God is given\nabsolutely to Christ. Let us remember that the point at issue, as appears\nfrom the whole treatise, and particularly from the forty\u2010sixth chapter of\nthe second book, was this: That the appellation of Father is not given in\nan enigmatical and parabolical sense to one who is not truly God. Besides,\nin another place he contends, that the Son is called God, as well as the\nFather, by the Prophets and Apostles. He afterwards states how Christ, who\nis Lord, and King, and God, and Judge of all, received power from him who\nis God of all; and that is with relation to the subjection in which he was\nhumbled even to the death of the cross. And a little after he affirms,\nthat the Son is the Creator of heaven and earth, who gave the law by the\nhand of Moses, and appeared to the patriarchs. Now, if any one pretends\nthat Iren\u00e6us acknowledges the Father alone as the God of Israel, I shall\nreply, as is clearly maintained by the same writer, that Christ is one and\nthe same; as also he applies to him the prophecy of Habakkuk: \u201cGod shall\ncome from the south.\u201d To the same purpose is what we find in the ninth\nchapter of the fourth book: \u201cTherefore Christ himself is, with the Father,\nthe God of the living.\u201d And in the twelfth chapter of the same book he\nstates, that Abraham believed in God, inasmuch as Christ is the Creator of\nheaven and earth, and the only God.\n\nXXVIII. Their pretensions to the sanction of Tertullian are equally\nunfounded, for, notwithstanding the occasional harshness and obscurity of\nhis mode of expression, yet he unequivocally teaches the substance of the\ndoctrine which we are defending; that is, that whereas there is one God,\nyet by dispensation or economy there is his Word; that there is but one\nGod in the unity of the substance, but that the unity, by a mysterious\ndispensation, is disposed into a trinity; that there are three, not in\ncondition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but\nin order. He says, indeed, that he maintains the Son to be second to the\nFather; but he applies this only to the distinction of the Persons. He\nsays somewhere, that the Son is visible; but after having stated arguments\non both sides, he concludes that, as the Word, he is invisible. Lastly,\nhis assertion that the Father is designated by his Person, proves him to\nbe at the greatest distance from the notion which we are refuting. And\nthough he acknowledges no other God than the Father, yet the explanations\nwhich he gives in the immediate context show that he speaks not to the\nexclusion of the Son, when he denies the existence of any other God than\nthe Father; and that therefore the unity of Divine government is not\nviolated by the distinction of persons. And from the nature and design of\nhis argument it is easy to gather the meaning of his words. For he\ncontends, in opposition to Praxeas, that although God is distinguished\ninto three Persons, yet neither is there a plurality of gods, nor is the\nunity divided. And because, according to the erroneous notion of Praxeas,\nChrist could not be God, without being the Father, therefore Tertullian\nbestows so much labour upon the distinction. His calling the Word and\nSpirit a portion of the whole, though a harsh expression, yet is\nexcusable; since it has no reference to the substance, but only denotes\nthe disposition and economy, which belongs solely to the Persons,\naccording to the testimony of Tertullian himself. Hence also that\nquestion, \u201cHow many Persons suppose you that there are, O most perverse\nPraxeas, but as many as there are names?\u201d So, a little after, \u201cthat they\nmay believe the Father and the Son, both in their names and Persons.\u201d\nThese arguments, I conceive, will suffice to refute the impudence of those\nwho make use of the authority of Tertullian in order to deceive the minds\nof the simple.\n\nXXIX. And certainly, whoever will diligently compare the writings of the\nfathers, will find in Iren\u00e6us nothing different from what was advanced by\nothers who succeeded him. Justin Martyr is one of the most ancient; and he\nagrees with us in every point. They may object that the Father of Christ\nis denominated the one God by him as well as by the rest. The same is\nasserted also by Hilary, and even in harsher terms: he says, that eternity\nis in the Father; but does this imply a denial of the Divine essence to\nthe Son? On the contrary, he had no other design than to maintain the same\nfaith which we hold. Nevertheless, they are not ashamed to cull out\nmutilated passages, in order to induce a belief that he patronized their\nerror. If they wish any authority to be attached to their quotation of\nIgnatius, let them prove that the Apostles delivered any law concerning\nLent, and similar corruptions; for nothing can be more absurd than the\nimpertinencies which have been published under the name of Ignatius.\nWherefore their impudence is more intolerable, who disguise themselves\nunder such false colours for the purpose of deception. Moreover, the\nconsent of antiquity manifestly appears from this circumstance, that in\nthe Nicene Council, Arius never dared to defend himself by the authority\nof any approved writer; and not one of the Greek or Latin fathers, who\nwere there united against him, excused himself as at all dissenting from\nhis predecessors. With regard to Augustine, who experienced great\nhostility from these disturbers, his diligent examination of all the\nwritings of the earlier fathers, and his respectful attention to them,\nneed not be mentioned. If he differs from them in the smallest\nparticulars, he assigns the reasons which oblige him to dissent from them.\nOn this argument also, if he finds any thing ambiguous or obscure in\nothers, he never conceals it. Yet he takes it for granted, that the\ndoctrine which those men oppose has been received without controversy from\nthe remotest antiquity; and yet that he was not uninformed of what others\nhad taught before him, appears even from one word in the first book of his\nTreatise on the Christian Doctrine, where he says, that unity is in the\nFather. Will they pretend that he had then forgotten himself? But he\nelsewhere vindicates himself from this calumny, where he calls the Father\nthe fountain of the whole Deity, because he is from no other; wisely\nconsidering that the name of God is especially ascribed to the Father,\nbecause, unless the original be from him, it is impossible to conceive of\nthe simple unity of the Deity. These observations, I hope, will be\napproved by the pious reader, as sufficient to refute all the calumnies,\nwith which Satan has hitherto laboured to pervert or obscure the purity of\nthis doctrine. Finally, I trust that the whole substance of this doctrine\nhas been faithfully stated and explained, provided my readers set bounds\nto their curiosity, and are not unreasonably fond of tedious and intricate\ncontroversies. For I have not the least expectation of giving satisfaction\nto those who are pleased with an intemperance of speculation. I am sure I\nhave used no artifice in the omission of any thing, from a supposition\nthat it would make against me. But, studying the edification of the\nChurch, I have thought it better not to touch upon many things, which\nwould be unnecessarily burdensome to the reader, without yielding him any\nprofit. For to what purpose is it to dispute, whether the Father be always\nbegetting? For it is foolish to imagine a continual act of generation,\nsince it is evident that three Persons have subsisted in God from all\neternity.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XIV. The True God Clearly Distinguished In The Scripture From All\nFictitious Ones By The Creation Of The World.\n\n\nAlthough Isaiah(290) brings a just accusation of stupidity against the\nworshippers of fictitious deities, for not having learned, from the\nfoundations of the earth, and the circuit of the heavens, who was the true\nGod, yet such is the slowness and dulness of our minds, as to induce a\nnecessity for a more express exhibition of the true God, lest the faithful\nshould decline to the fictions of the heathen. For, since the most\ntolerable description given by the philosophers, that God is the soul of\nthe world, is utterly vain and worthless, we require a more familiar\nknowledge of him, to prevent us from wavering in perpetual uncertainty.\nTherefore he hath been pleased to give us a history of the creation, on\nwhich the faith of the Church might rest, without seeking after any other\nGod than him whom Moses has represented as the former and builder of the\nworld. The first thing specified in this history is the time, that by a\ncontinued series of years the faithful might arrive at the first original\nof the human race, and of all things. This knowledge is eminently useful,\nnot only to contradict the monstrous fables formerly received in Egypt and\nother countries, but also to give us clearer views of the eternity of God,\nand to fill us with greater admiration of it. Nor ought we to be moved\nwith that profane sneer, that it is marvellous that God did not form the\ndesign of creating heaven and earth at an earlier period, but suffered an\nimmeasurable duration to pass away unemployed, since he could have made\nthem many thousands of ages before; whereas the continuance of the world,\nnow advancing to its last end, has not yet reached six thousand years. For\nthe reason why God deferred it so long, it would be neither lawful nor\nexpedient to inquire; because, if the human mind strive to penetrate it,\nit will fail a hundred times in the attempt; nor, indeed, could there be\nany utility in the knowledge of that which God himself, in order to prove\nthe modesty of our faith, has purposely concealed. Great shrewdness was\ndiscovered by a certain pious old man, who, when some scoffer ludicrously\ninquired what God had been doing before the creation of the world, replied\nthat he had been making hell for over curious men. This admonition, no\nless grave than severe, should repress the wantonness which stimulates\nmany, and impels them to perverse and injurious speculations. Lastly, let\nus remember that God, who is invisible, and whose wisdom, power, and\njustice, are incomprehensible, has placed before us the history of Moses,\nas a mirror which exhibits his lively image. For as eyes, either dim\nthrough age, or dull through any disease, see nothing distinctly without\nthe assistance of spectacles, so, in our inquiries after God, such is our\nimbecility, without the guidance of the Scripture we immediately lose our\nway. But those who indulge their presumption, since they are now\nadmonished in vain, will perceive too late, by their horrible destruction,\nhow much better it would have been to look up to the secret counsels of\nGod with reverential awe, than to disgorge their blasphemies to darken the\nheaven. Augustine justly complains, that it is an offence against God, to\ninquire for any cause of things, higher than his will. He elsewhere\nprudently cautions us, that it is as absurd to dispute concerning an\ninfinite duration of time, as concerning an infinite extent of place.\nHowever extensive the circuit of the heavens, yet certainly it has some\ndimensions. Now, if any one should expostulate with God, that the vacuity\nof space is a hundred times larger, would not such arrogance be detested\nby all pious persons? The same madness is chargeable on those who censure\nthe inaction of God, for not having, according to their wishes, created\nthe world innumerable ages before. To gratify their inordinate curiosity,\nthey desire to pass beyond the limits of the world; as though, in the very\nample circumference of heaven and earth, we were not surrounded by\nnumerous objects capable of absorbing all our senses in their inestimable\nsplendour; as though, in the course of six thousand years, God had not\ngiven us lessons sufficient to exercise our minds in assiduous meditation\non them. Then let us cheerfully remain within these barriers with which\nGod has been pleased to circumscribe us, and as it were to confine our\nminds, that they might not be wandering in the boundless regions of\nuncertain conjecture.\n\nII. To the same purpose is the narration of Moses, that the work of God\nwas completed, not in one moment, but in six days. For by this\ncircumstance also we are called away from all false deities to the only\ntrue God, who distributed his work into six days, that it might not be\ntedious to us to occupy the whole of life in the consideration of it. For\nthough, whithersoever we turn our eyes, they are constrained to behold the\nworks of God, yet we see how transient our attention is, and, if we are\ntouched with any pious reflections, how soon they leave us again. Here,\nalso, human reason murmurs, as though such progressive works were\ninconsistent with the power of Deity; till, subdued to the obedience of\nfaith, it learns to observe that rest, to which the sanctification of the\nseventh day invites us. Now, in the order of those things, we must\ndiligently consider the paternal love of God towards the human race, in\nnot creating Adam before he had enriched the earth with an abundant supply\nof every thing conducive to his happiness. For had he placed him in the\nearth while it remained barren and vacant, had he given him life before\nthere was any light, he would have appeared not very attentive to his\nbenefit. Now, when he has regulated the motions of the sun and the stars\nfor the service of man, replenished the earth, the air, and the waters,\nwith living creatures, and caused the earth to produce an abundance of all\nkinds of fruits sufficient for sustenance, he acts the part of a provident\nand sedulous father of a family, and displays his wonderful goodness\ntowards us. If the reader will more attentively consider with himself\nthese things, which I only hint at as I proceed, he will be convinced that\nMoses was an authentic witness and herald of the one God, the Creator of\nthe world. I pass over what I have already stated, that he not only speaks\nof the mere essence of God, but also exhibits to us his eternal Wisdom and\nhis Spirit, in order that we may not dream of any other God except him who\nwill be known in that express image.\n\nIII. But before I begin to enlarge on the nature of man, something must be\nsaid concerning angels. Because, though Moses, in the history of the\ncreation, accommodating himself to the ignorance of the common people,\nmentions no other works of God than such as are visible to our eyes, yet,\nwhen he afterwards introduces angels as ministers of God, we may easily\nconclude, that he is their Creator, whom they obey, and in whose service\nthey are employed. Though Moses, therefore, speaking in a popular manner,\ndoes not, in the beginning of his writings, immediately enumerate the\nangels among the creatures of God, yet nothing forbids our here making a\nplain and explicit statement of those things which the Scripture teaches\nin other places; because, if we desire to know God from his works, such an\nexcellent and noble specimen should by no means be omitted. Besides, this\npoint of doctrine is very necessary for the confutation of many errors.\nThe excellence of the angelic nature has so dazzled the minds of many,\nthat they have supposed them to be injured, if they were treated as mere\ncreatures, subject to the government of one God. Hence they were falsely\npretended to possess a kind of divinity. Manich\u00e6us has also arisen, with\nthe sect which he founded, who imagined to himself two original\nprinciples, God and the devil; and attributed to God the origin of all\ngood things, but referred evil natures to the production of the devil. If\nour minds were bewildered in this wild and incoherent system, we should\nnot leave God in full possession of his glory in the creation of the\nworld. For, since nothing is more peculiar to God than eternity and self\u2010\nexistence, does not the ascription of this to the devil dignify him with a\ntitle of Divinity? Now, where is the omnipotence of God, if such an empire\nbe conceded to the devil, as that he can execute whatever he pleases,\nnotwithstanding the aversion of the Divine will, or opposition of the\nDivine power? But the only foundation of the system of Manich\u00e6us, that it\nis unlawful to ascribe to a good God the creation of any evil thing, in no\nrespect affects the orthodox faith, which admits not that any thing in the\nuniverse is evil in its nature; since neither the depravity and wickedness\nof men and devils, nor the sins which proceed from that source, are from\nmere nature, but from a corruption of nature; nor from the beginning has\nany thing existed, in which God has not given a specimen both of his\nwisdom and of his justice. To oppose these perverse notions, it is\nnecessary to raise our minds higher than our eyes can reach. And it is\nvery probable that it was with this design, when, in the Nicene creed, God\nis called the Creator of all things, that particular mention is made of\nthings invisible. Yet it shall be my study to observe the limit which the\nrule of piety prescribes, lest, by indulging an unprofitable degree of\nspeculation, I should lead the reader astray from the simplicity of the\nfaith. And certainly, since the Spirit invariably teaches us in a\nprofitable manner, but, with regard to things of little importance to\nedification, either is wholly silent, or but lightly and cursorily touches\non them,\u2014it is also our duty cheerfully to remain in ignorance of what it\nis not for our advantage to know.\n\nIV. Since angels are ministers of God appointed to execute his\ncommands,(291) that they are also his creatures, ought to be admitted\nwithout controversy. And does it not betray obstinacy rather than\ndiligence, to raise any contention concerning the time or the order in\nwhich they were created? Moses narrates, that \u201cthe heavens and the earth\nwere finished, and all the host of them:\u201d(292) to what purpose is it\nanxiously to inquire, on what day, besides the stars and the planets, the\nother more concealed hosts of heaven began to exist? Not to be too prolix,\nlet us remember on this point (as on the whole doctrine of religion) to\nobserve one rule of modesty and sobriety; which is, not to speak, or\nthink, or even desire to know, concerning obscure subjects, any thing\nbeyond the information given us in the Divine word. Another rule to be\nfollowed is, in reading the Scripture, continually to direct our attention\nto investigate and meditate upon things conducive to edification; not to\nindulge curiosity or the study of things unprofitable. And, since the Lord\nhas been pleased to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid\npiety, the fear of his name, true confidence, and the duties of holiness,\nlet us content ourselves with that knowledge. Wherefore, if we wish to be\ntruly wise, we must forsake the vain imaginations propagated by triflers\nconcerning the nature, orders, and multitude of angels. I know that these\nthings are embraced by many persons with greater avidity, and dwelt upon\nwith more pleasure, than such things as are in daily use. But, if it be\nnot irksome to be the disciples of Christ, it should not be irksome to\nfollow that method which he has prescribed. Then the consequence will be,\nthat, content with his discipline, we shall not only leave, but also\nabhor, those unprofitable speculations from which he calls us away. No man\ncan deny that great subtlety and acuteness is discovered by Dionysius,\nwhoever he was, in many parts of his treatise on the Celestial Hierarchy;\nbut, if any one enters into a critical examination of it, he will find the\ngreatest part of it to be mere babbling. But the duty of a theologian is,\nnot to please the ear with empty sounds, but to confirm the conscience by\nteaching things which are true, certain, and profitable. A reader of that\nbook would suppose that the author was a man descended from heaven, giving\nan account of things that he had not learned from the information of\nothers, but had seen with his own eyes. But Paul, who was \u201ccaught up to\nthe third heaven,\u201d(293) not only has told us no such things, but has even\ndeclared, that it is not lawful for men to utter the secret things which\nhe had seen. Taking our leave, therefore, of this nugatory wisdom, let us\nconsider, from the simple doctrine of the Scripture, what the Lord has\nbeen pleased for us to know concerning his angels.\n\nV. We are frequently informed in the Scripture, that angels are celestial\nspirits, whose ministry and service God uses for the execution of whatever\nhe has decreed; and hence this name is given to them, because God employs\nthem as messengers to manifest himself to men. Other appellations also, by\nwhich they are distinguished, are derived from a similar cause. They are\ncalled Hosts, because, as life\u2010guards, they surround their prince,\naggrandizing his majesty, and rendering it conspicuous; and, like\nsoldiers, are ever attentive to the signal of their leader; and are so\nprepared for the performance of his commands, that he has no sooner\nsignified his will than they are ready for the work, or rather are\nactually engaged in it. Such a representation of the throne of God is\nexhibited in the magnificent descriptions of the Prophets, but\nparticularly of Daniel; where he says, when God had ascended the judgment\u2010\nseat, that \u201cthousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times\nten thousand stood before him.\u201d(294) Since by their means the Lord\nwonderfully exerts and declares the power and strength of his hand, thence\nthey are denominated Powers.(295) Because by them he exercises and\nadministers his government in the world, therefore they are called\nsometimes Principalities, sometimes Powers, sometimes Dominions. Lastly,\nbecause the glory of God in some measure resides in them, they have also,\nfor this reason, the appellation of Thrones;(296) although on this last\nname I would affirm nothing, because a different interpretation is equally\nor even more suitable. But, omitting this name, the Holy Spirit often uses\nthe former ones, to magnify the dignity of the angelic ministry. Nor,\nindeed, is it right that no honour should be paid to those instruments, by\nwhom God particularly exhibits the presence of his power. Moreover, they\nare more than once called gods; because in their ministry, as in a mirror,\nthey give us an imperfect representation of Divinity. Though I am pleased\nwith the interpretation of the old writers, on those passages where the\nScripture records the appearance of an angel of God to Abraham, Jacob,\nMoses, and others,(297) that Christ was that angel, yet frequently, where\nmention is made of angels in general, this name is given to them. Nor\nshould this surprise us; for, if that honour be given to princes and\ngovernors, because, in the performance of their functions, they are\nvicegerents of God, the supreme King and Judge,(298) there is far greater\nreason for its being paid to angels, in whom the splendour of the Divine\nglory is far more abundantly displayed.\n\nVI. But the Scripture principally insists on what might conduce most to\nour consolation, and the confirmation of our faith\u2014that the angels are the\ndispensers and administrators of the Divine beneficence towards us; and\ntherefore it informs us, that they guard our safety, undertake our\ndefence, direct our ways, and exercise a constant solicitude that no evil\nbefall us. The declarations are universal, belonging primarily to Christ\nthe head of the Church, and then to all the faithful: \u201cHe shall give his\nangels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear\nthee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.\u201d(299)\nAgain, \u201cThe angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him,\nand delivereth them.\u201d(300) In these passages God shows that he delegates\nto his angels the protection of those whom he has undertaken to preserve.\nAccordingly, the angel of the Lord consoles the fugitive Hagar, and\ncommands her to be reconciled to her mistress.(301) Abraham promises his\nservant that an angel should be the guide of his journey.(302) Jacob, in\nhis benediction of Ephraim and Manasseh, prays that the angel of the Lord,\nby whom he had been redeemed from all evil, would cause them to\nprosper.(303) Thus an angel was appointed to protect the camp of the\nIsraelites;(304) and whenever it pleased God to deliver them from the\nhands of their enemies, he raised up avengers by the ministry of\nangels.(305) And finally, to supersede the necessity of adducing more\nexamples, angels ministered to Christ and attended him in all his\ndifficulties; they announced his resurrection to the women, and his\nglorious advent to the disciples.(306) And thus, in the discharge of their\noffice as our protectors, they contend against the devil and all our\nenemies, and execute the vengeance of God on those who molest us; as we\nread that an angel of God, to deliver Jerusalem from a siege, slew a\nhundred and eighty\u2010five thousand men in the camp of the king of Assyria in\none night.(307)\n\nVII. But whether each of the faithful has a particular angel assigned him\nfor his defence, I cannot venture certainly to affirm. When Daniel\nintroduces the angel of the Persians and the angel of the Greeks,(308) he\nclearly signifies that certain angels are appointed to preside over\nkingdoms and provinces. Christ also, when he says that the angels of\nchildren always behold the face of the Father,(309) suggests, that there\nare certain angels who are charged with their safety. But I know not\nwhether this justifies the conclusion, that every one of them has his\nparticular guardian angel. Of this, indeed, we may be certain, that not\none angel only has the care of every one of us, but that they all with one\nconsent watch for our salvation. For it is said of all the angels\ntogether, that they rejoice more over one sinner turned to repentance,\nthan over ninety and nine just persons who have persevered in their\nrighteousness.(310) Of more than one angel it is said, that they carried\nthe soul of Lazarus into the bosom of Abraham.(311) Nor is it in vain that\nElisha shows his servant so many fiery chariots, which were peculiarly\nassigned to him for his protection.(312) There is one place which seems\nclearer than the rest in confirmation of this point. For when Peter, on\nhis liberation from prison, knocked at the door of the house in which the\nbrethren were assembled, as they could not suppose it to be Peter himself,\nthey said it was his angel.(313) This conclusion seems to have arisen in\ntheir minds from the common opinion that each of the faithful has his\nguardian angel assigned him. But here it may also be replied, that nothing\nprevents this being understood of any one of the angels, to whom the Lord\nmight have committed the care of Peter on that occasion, and who yet might\nnot be his perpetual guardian; as it is vulgarly imagined that every\nperson has two angels, a good one and a bad one, according to the heathen\nnotion of different genii. But it is not worth while anxiously to\ninvestigate what it little concerns us to know. For if any one be not\nsatisfied with this, that all the orders of the celestial army watch for\nhis safety, I see not what advantage he can derive from knowing that he\nhas one particular angel given him for his guardian. But those who\nrestrict to one angel the care which God exercises over every one of us,\ndo a great injury to themselves, and to all the members of the Church; as\nthough those auxiliaries had been promised in vain, who, by surrounding\nand defending us on all sides, contribute to increase our courage in the\nconflict.\n\nVIII. Let those, who venture to determine concerning the multitude and\norders of the angels, examine on what foundation their opinions rest.\nMichael, I confess, is called in Daniel \u201cthe great prince,\u201d and in Jude\n\u201cthe archangel.\u201d(314) And Paul informs us that it will be an archangel,\nwho, with the sound of a trumpet, shall summon men to judgment.(315) But\nwho, from these passages, can determine the degrees of honour among the\nangels, distinguish the individuals by their respective titles, and assign\nto every one his place and station? For the two names which are found in\nthe Scripture, Michael and Gabriel, and the third, if you wish to add it\nfrom the history of Tobias,(316) may appear, from their significations, to\nbe given to angels on account of our infirmity; though I would rather\nleave this undetermined. With respect to their numbers, we hear, from the\nmouth of Christ, of many legions;(317) from Daniel, of many myriads:(318)\nthe servant of Elisha saw many chariots; and their being said to encamp\nround about them that fear God,(319) is expressive of a great multitude.\nIt is certain that spirits have no form; and yet the Scripture, on account\nof the slender capacity of our minds, under the names of cherubim and\nseraphim, represents angels to us as having wings, to prevent our doubting\nthat they will always attend, with incredible celerity, to afford us\nassistance as soon as our cases require it; as though the lightning darted\nfrom heaven were to fly to us with its accustomed velocity. All further\ninquiries on both these points, we should consider as belonging to that\nclass of mysteries, the full revelation of which is deferred to the last\nday. Wherefore let us remember that we ought to avoid too much curiosity\nof research, and presumption of language.\n\nIX. But this, which is called in question by some restless men, must be\nreceived as a certain truth, that angels are ministering spirits, whose\nservice God uses for the protection of his people, and by whom he\ndispenses his benefits among mankind, and executes his other works. It was\nthe opinion of the ancient Sadducees, indeed, that the term _angels_\nsignified nothing but the motions which God inspires into men, or those\nspecimens which he gives of his power. But this foolish notion is\nrepugnant to so many testimonies of Scripture, that it is surprising how\nsuch gross ignorance could have been tolerated among that people. For, to\nomit the places before cited, where mention is made of thousands and\nlegions of angels; where joy is attributed to them; where they are said to\nsustain the faithful in their hands, to carry their souls into rest, to\nbehold the face of the Father,(320) and the like,\u2014there are others which\nmost clearly evince, that they are spirits possessing an actual existence\nand their own peculiar nature. For the declarations of Stephen and\nPaul,\u2014that the law was given by the hand of angels,(321) and of Christ,\nthat the elect, after the resurrection, shall be like angels; that the day\nof judgment is not known even to the angels; that he then will come with\nhis holy angels,(322)\u2014however tortured, must necessarily be thus\nunderstood. Likewise, when Paul charges Timothy, before Christ and the\nelect angels, to keep his precepts,(323) he intends, not unsubstantial\nqualities or inspirations, but real spirits. Nor otherwise is there any\nmeaning in what we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ is made\nmore excellent than the angels, that the world is not subject to them,\nthat Christ assumed not their nature, but the nature of man,(324) unless\nwe understand that there are happy spirits, to whom these comparisons may\napply. And the author of the same epistle explains himself, where he\nplaces angels and the souls of the faithful together in the kingdom of\nGod.(325) Besides, we have already quoted, that the angels of children\nalways behold the face of God; that we are always defended by their\nprotection; that they rejoice for our safety; that they admire the\nmanifold grace of God in the church;(326) and are subject to Christ as\ntheir head.(327) The same truth is proved by their having so often\nappeared to the patriarchs in the form of men, conversed with them, and\nbeen entertained by them. And Christ himself, on account of the\npre\u00ebminence which he obtains in the capacity of Mediator, is called an\nangel.(328) I have thought proper cursorily to touch on this point, in\norder to fortify the simple against those foolish and absurd notions,\nwhich were disseminated by Satan many ages ago, and are frequently\nspringing up afresh.\n\nX. It remains for us to encounter the superstition, which generally\ninsinuates itself into men\u2019s minds when angels are said to be the\nministers and dispensers of all our blessings. For human reason soon falls\ninto an opinion, that there is no honour that ought not to be paid to\nthem. Thus it happens that what belongs solely to God and Christ, is\ntransferred to them. Thus we see, that for some ages past the glory of\nChrist has in many ways been obscured; while angels have been loaded with\nextravagant honours without the authority of the word of God. And among\nthe errors which we combat in the present day, there is scarcely one more\nancient than this. For even Paul appears to have had a great controversy\nwith some, who exalted angels in such a manner as almost to degrade Christ\nto an inferior station. Hence the solicitude with which he maintains, in\nthe Epistle to the Colossians, not only that Christ is to be esteemed\nabove angels, but also that he is the author of all blessings to\nthem,(329) in order that we may not forsake him and turn to them, who are\nnot even sufficient for themselves, but draw from the same fountain as we\ndo. Since the splendour of the Divine majesty, therefore, is eminently\ndisplayed in them, there is nothing more natural than for us to fall down\nwith astonishment in adoration of them, and to attribute every thing to\nthem which exclusively belongs to God. Even John, in the Revelation,\nconfesses this to have happened to himself; but adds at the same time,\nthat he was thus answered: \u201cSee thou do it not: I am thy fellow\u2010servant:\nworship God.\u201d(330)\n\nXI. But this danger we shall happily avoid, if we consider why God is\naccustomed to provide for the safety of the faithful, and to communicate\nthe gifts of his beneficence by means of angels, rather than by himself to\nmanifest his own power without their intervention. He certainly does this\nnot from necessity, as though he were unable to do without them; for\nwhenever he pleases he passes them by, and performs his work with a mere\nnod of his power; so far is he from being indebted to their assistance for\nrelieving him in any difficulty. This, therefore, conduces to the\nconsolation of our imbecility, that we may want nothing that can either\nraise our minds to a good hope, or confirm them in security. This one\nthing, indeed, ought to be more than sufficient for us, that the Lord\ndeclares himself to be our Protector. But while we see ourselves\nencompassed with so many dangers, so many annoyances, such various kinds\nof enemies,\u2014such is our weakness and frailty, that we may sometimes be\nfilled with terror, or fall into despair, unless the Lord enables us,\naccording to our capacity, to discover the presence of his grace. For this\nreason he promises, not only that he will take care of us himself, but\nalso that we shall have innumerable life\u2010guards, to whom he has committed\nthe charge of our safety; and that, as long as we are surrounded by their\nsuperintendence and protection, whatever danger may threaten, we are\nplaced beyond the utmost reach of evil. I confess, indeed, that it is\nwrong for us, after that simple promise of the protection of God alone,\nstill to be looking around to see from what quarter our aid may come. But\nsince the Lord, from his infinite clemency and goodness, is pleased to\nassist this our weakness, there is no reason why we should neglect this\ngreat favour which he shows us. We have an example of this in the servant\nof Elisha, who, when he saw that the mountain was besieged by an army of\nSyrians,(331) and that no way of escape was left, was filled with\nconsternation, as though himself and his master had been ruined. Then\nElisha prayed that God would open his eyes, and he immediately saw the\nmountain full of horses and chariots of fire; that is, of a multitude of\nangels who were to guard him and the Prophet. Encouraged by this vision,\nhe came to himself again, and was able to look down with intrepidity on\nthe enemies, the sight of whom before had almost deprived him of life.\n\nXII. Therefore, whatever is said concerning the ministry of angels, let us\ndirect it to this end, that, overcoming all diffidence, our hope in God\nmay be more firmly established. For the Lord has provided these guards for\nus, that we may not be terrified by a multitude of enemies, as though they\ncould prevail in opposition to his assistance, but may have recourse to\nthe sentiment expressed by Elisha, \u201cThere are more for us than against\nus.\u201d How preposterous is it, then, that we should be alienated from God by\nangels, who are appointed for this very purpose, to testify that his aid\nis more especially present with us! But they do alienate us from him,\nunless they lead us directly to him, to regard him, call on him, and\ncelebrate him as our only helper; unless they are considered by us as his\nhands, which apply themselves to do nothing without his direction; unless\nthey attach us to Christ, the only Mediator, to depend entirely on him, to\nlean upon him, to aspire to him, and to rest satisfied in him. For what is\ndescribed in the vision of Jacob(332) ought to be firmly fixed in our\nminds, that the angels descend to the earth to men, and ascend from earth\nto heaven, by a ladder above which stands the Lord of hosts. This implies,\nthat it is only through the intercession of Christ, that we are favoured\nwith the ministry of angels, as he himself affirms: \u201cHereafter ye shall\nsee heaven open, and the angels descending upon the Son of man.\u201d(333)\nTherefore the servant of Abraham, having been commended to the care of an\nangel,(334) does not therefore invoke him for his aid, but, trusting to\nthat committal, pours out his prayers before the Lord, and entreats him to\ndisplay his mercy towards Abraham. For as God does not make them the\nministers of his power and goodness, in order to divide his glory with\nthem, so neither does he promise his assistance in their ministry, that we\nmay divide our confidence between them and him. Let us take our leave,\ntherefore, of that Platonic philosophy, which seeks access to God by means\nof angels, and worships them in order to render him more propitious to us;\nwhich superstitious and curious men have endeavoured from the beginning,\nand even to this day persevere in attempting, to introduce into our\nreligion.\n\nXIII. The design of almost every thing that the Scripture teaches\nconcerning devils, is that we may be careful to guard against their\ninsidious machinations, and may provide ourselves with such weapons as are\nsufficiently firm and strong to repel the most powerful enemies. For when\nSatan is called the god and prince of this world,(335) the strong man\narmed,(336) the prince of the power of the air,(337) a roaring lion,(338)\nthese descriptions only tend to make us more cautious and vigilant, and\nbetter prepared to encounter him. This is sometimes signified in express\nwords. For Peter, after having said that \u201cthe devil, as a roaring lion,\nwalketh about seeking whom he may devour,\u201d immediately subjoins an\nexhortation to \u201cresist him, steadfast in the faith.\u201d And Paul, having\nsuggested that \u201cwe wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against\nprincipalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this\nworld, against spiritual wickedness,\u201d(339) immediately commands us to put\non suitable armour for so great and so perilous a conflict. Wherefore,\nhaving been previously warned that we are perpetually threatened by an\nenemy, and an enemy desperately bold and extremely strong, skilled in\nevery artifice, indefatigable in diligence and celerity, abundantly\nprovided with all kinds of weapons, and most expert in the science of war,\nlet us make it the grand object of our attention, that we suffer not\nourselves to be oppressed with slothfulness and inactivity, but, on the\ncontrary, arousing and collecting all our courage, be ready for a vigorous\nresistance; and as this warfare is terminated only by death, let us\nencourage ourselves to perseverance. But, above all, conscious of weakness\nand ignorance, let us implore the assistance of God, nor attempt any thing\nbut in reliance on him; since he alone can supply us with wisdom, and\nstrength, and courage, and armour.\n\nXIV. But, the more to excite and urge us to such conduct, the Scripture\nannounces that there are not one, or two, or a few enemies, but great\narmies who wage war against us. For even Mary Magdalene is said to have\nbeen delivered from seven demons, by whom she was possessed;(340) and\nChrist declares it to be a common case, that, if you leave the place open\nfor the re\u2010entrance of a demon who has once been ejected, he associates\nwith himself seven spirits more wicked still, and returns to his vacant\npossession.(341) Indeed, one man is said to have been possessed by a whole\nlegion.(342) By these passages, therefore, we are taught, that we have to\ncontend with an infinite multitude of enemies; lest, despising their\npaucity, we should be more remiss to encounter them, or, expecting\nsometimes an intermission of hostility, should indulge ourselves in\nidleness. But when one Satan or devil is frequently mentioned in the\nsingular number, it denotes that principality of wickedness which opposes\nthe kingdom of righteousness. For as the Church and society of saints have\nChrist as their head, so the faction of the impious, and impiety itself,\nare represented to us with their prince, who exercises the supreme power\namong them; which is the meaning of that sentence, \u201cDepart, ye cursed,\ninto everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.\u201d(343)\n\nXV. It also ought to stimulate us to a perpetual war with the devil, that\nhe is every where called God\u2019s adversary and ours. For, if we feel the\nconcern which we ought to feel for the glory of God, we shall exert all\nour power against him who attempts the extinction of it. If we are\nanimated by a becoming zeal for defending the kingdom of Christ, we must\nnecessarily have an irreconcilable war with him who conspires its ruin. On\nthe other hand, if we are solicitous for our salvation, we ought to make\nneither peace nor truce with him who assiduously plots its destruction.\nNow, such is the description given of him in the third chapter of Genesis,\nwhere he seduces man from the obedience owed by him to God, so that he at\nonce robs God of his just honour, and precipitates man into ruin. Such,\nalso, is he described in the Evangelists, where he is called an enemy, and\nsaid to sow tares in order to corrupt the seed of eternal life.(344) In\nshort, the testimony of Christ concerning him, that he was a murderer and\na liar from the beginning,(345) we find verified in all his actions. For\nhe opposes Divine truth with lies; obscures the light with shades of\ndarkness; involves the minds of men in errors; stirs up animosities, and\nkindles contentions and wars;\u2014and all for the purpose of subverting the\nkingdom of God, and plunging mankind with himself into eternal\ndestruction. Whence it is evident, that he is naturally depraved, vicious,\nmalignant, and mischievous. For there must be extreme depravity in that\nmind which is bent on opposing the glory of God and the salvation of men.\nAnd this is suggested by John in his Epistle, when he says, that \u201che\nsinneth from the beginning.\u201d For he intends, that he is the author,\nconductor, and principal contriver of all wickedness and iniquity.\n\nXVI. But since the devil was created by God, we must remark, that this\nwickedness which we attribute to his nature is not from creation, but from\ncorruption. For whatever evil quality he has, he has acquired by his\ndefection and fall. And of this the Scripture apprizes us; lest, believing\nhim to have come from God, just as he now is, we should ascribe to God\nhimself that which is in direct opposition to him. For this reason Christ\ndeclares, that Satan, \u201cwhen he speaketh a lie, speaketh of his own;\u201d(346)\nand adds the reason\u2014\u201cbecause he abode not in the truth.\u201d When he says that\nhe abode not in the truth, he certainly implies that he had once been in\nit; and when he calls him the father of a lie, he precludes his imputing\nto God the depravity of his nature, which originated wholly from himself.\nThough these things are delivered in a brief and rather obscure manner,\nyet they are abundantly sufficient to vindicate the majesty of God from\nevery calumny. And what does it concern us to know, respecting devils,\neither more particulars, or for any other purpose? Some persons are\ndispleased that the Scripture does not give us, in various places, a\ndistinct and detailed account of their fall, with its cause, manner, time,\nand nature. But, these things being nothing to us, it was better for them,\nif not to be passed over in total silence, yet certainly to be touched on\nbut lightly; because it would ill comport with the dignity of the Holy\nSpirit to feed curiosity with vain and unprofitable histories; and we\nperceive it to have been the design of the Lord, to deliver nothing in his\nsacred oracles, which we might not learn to our edification. That we\nourselves, therefore, may not dwell upon unprofitable subjects, let us be\ncontent with this concise information respecting the nature of devils;\nthat at their creation they were originally angels of God, but by\ndegenerating have ruined themselves, and become the instruments of\nperdition to others. This being useful to be known, it is clearly stated\nby Peter and Jude. \u201cGod,\u201d say they, \u201cspared not the angels that sinned,\nand kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.\u201d(347) And\nPaul, mentioning the elect angels,(348) without doubt tacitly implies that\nthere are reprobate ones.\n\nXVII. The discord and contention, which we say Satan maintains against\nGod, ought to be understood in a manner consistent with a firm persuasion,\nthat he can do nothing without God\u2019s will and consent. For we read in the\nhistory of Job, that he presented himself before God to receive his\ncommands, and dared not to undertake any enterprise without having\nobtained his permission.(349) Thus, also, when Ahab was to be deceived, he\nundertook to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets; and,\nbeing commissioned by God, he performed it.(350) For this reason he is\nalso called the \u201cevil spirit from the Lord,\u201d who tormented Saul,(351)\nbecause he was employed as a scourge to punish the sins of that impious\nmonarch. And elsewhere it is recorded, that the plagues were inflicted on\nthe Egyptians by the \u201cevil angels.\u201d(352) According to these particular\nexamples, Paul declares generally, that the blinding of unbelievers is the\nwork of God,(353) whereas he had before called it the operation of Satan.\nIt appears, then, that Satan is subject to the power of God, and so\ngoverned by his control, that he is compelled to render obedience to him.\nNow, when we say that Satan resists God, and that his works are contrary\nto the works of God, we at the same time assert that this repugnance and\ncontention depend on the Divine permission. I speak now, not of the will\nor the endeavour, but only of the effect. For the devil, being naturally\nwicked, has not the least inclination towards obedience to the Divine\nwill, but is wholly bent on insolence and rebellion. It therefore arises\nfrom himself and his wickedness, that he opposes God with all his desires\nand purposes. This depravity stimulates him to attempt those things which\nhe thinks the most opposed to God. But since God holds him tied and bound\nwith the bridle of his power, he executes only those things which are\ndivinely permitted; and thus, whether he will or not, he obeys his\nCreator, being constrained to fulfil any service to which he impels him.\n\nXVIII. While God directs the courses of unclean spirits hither and thither\nat his pleasure, he regulates this government in such a manner, that they\nexercise the faithful with fighting, attack them in ambuscades, harass\nthem with incursions, push them in battles, and frequently fatigue them,\nthrow them into confusion, terrify them, and sometimes wound them, yet\nnever conquer or overwhelm them; but subdue and lead captive the impious,\ntyrannize over their souls and bodies, and abuse them like slaves by\nemploying them in the perpetration of every enormity. The faithful, in\nconsequence of being harassed by such enemies, are addressed with the\nfollowing, and other similar exhortations: \u201cGive not place to the\ndevil.\u201d(354) \u201cYour adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about,\nseeking whom he may devour; whom resist, steadfast in the faith.\u201d(355)\nPaul confesses that he himself was not free from this kind of warfare,\nwhen he declares that, as a remedy to subdue pride, \u201cthe messenger of\nSatan was given to him to buffet him.\u201d(356) This exercise, then, is common\nto all the children of God. But, as the promise respecting the breaking of\nthe head of Satan(357) belongs to Christ and all his members in common, I\ntherefore deny that the faithful can ever be conquered or overwhelmed by\nhim. They are frequently filled with consternation, but recover themselves\nagain; they fall by the violence of his blows, but are raised up again;\nthey are wounded, but not mortally; finally, they labour through their\nwhole lives in such a manner, as at last to obtain the victory. This,\nhowever, is not to be restricted to each single action. For we know that,\nby the righteous vengeance of God, David was for a time delivered to\nSatan, that by his instigation he might number the people;(358) nor is it\nwithout reason that Paul admits a hope of pardon even for those who may\nhave been entangled in the snares of the devil.(359) Therefore the same\nApostle shows, in another place, that the promise before cited is begun in\nthis life, where we must engage in the conflict; and that after the\ntermination of the conflict it will be completed. \u201cAnd the God of peace,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cshall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.\u201d(360) In our Head\nthis victory, indeed, has always been complete, because the prince of this\nworld had nothing in him:(361) in us, who are his members, it yet appears\nonly in part, but will be completed when we shall have put off our flesh,\nwhich makes us still subject to infirmities, and shall be full of the\npower of the Holy Spirit. In this manner, when the kingdom of Christ is\nerected, Satan and his power must fall; as the Lord himself says, \u201cI\nbeheld Satan as lightning falling from heaven.\u201d(362) For by this answer he\nconfirms what the Apostles had reported concerning the power of his\npreaching. Again: \u201cWhen a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods\nare in peace; but when a stronger than he shall come upon him and overcome\nhim,\u201d &c.(363) And to this end Christ by his death overcame Satan, who had\nthe power of death, and triumphed over all his forces, that they might not\nbe able to hurt the Church; for otherwise it would be in hourly danger of\ndestruction. For such is our imbecility, and such the strength of his\nfury, how could we stand even for a moment against his various and\nunceasing attacks, without being supported by the victory of our Captain?\nTherefore God permits not Satan to exercise any power over the souls of\nthe faithful, but abandons to his government only the impious and\nunbelieving, whom he designs not to number among his own flock. For he is\nsaid to have the undisturbed possession of this world, till he is expelled\nby Christ.(364) He is said also to blind all who believe not the\nGospel,(365) and to work in the children of disobedience;(366) and this\njustly, for all the impious are vessels of wrath.(367) To whom, therefore,\nshould they be subjected, but to the minister of the Divine vengeance?\nFinally, they are said to be of their father the devil;(368) because, as\nthe faithful are known to be the children of God from their bearing his\nimage,(369) so the impious, from the image of Satan into which they have\ndegenerated, are properly considered as his children.\n\nXIX. But as we have already confuted that nugatory philosophy concerning\nthe holy angels, which teaches that they are nothing but inspirations, or\ngood motions, excited by God in the minds of men, so in this place we must\nrefute those who pretend that devils are nothing but evil affections or\nperturbations, which our flesh obtrudes on our minds. But this may be\neasily done, and that because the testimonies of Scripture on this subject\nare numerous and clear. First, when they are called unclean spirits and\napostate angels,(370) who have degenerated from their original condition,\nthe very names sufficiently express, not mental emotions or affections,\nbut rather in reality what are called minds, or spirits endued with\nperception and intelligence. Likewise, when the children of God are\ncompared with the children of the devil, both by Christ and by John,(371)\nwould not the comparison be absurd, if nothing were intended by the word\n_devil_ but evil inspirations? And John adds something still plainer, that\nthe devil sins from the beginning. Likewise, when Jude introduces Michael\nthe archangel contending with the devil,(372) he certainly opposes to the\ngood angel an evil and rebellious one; to which agrees what is recorded in\nthe history of Job, that Satan appeared with the holy angels before\nGod.(373) But the clearest of all are those passages, which mention the\npunishment which they begin to feel from the judgment of God, and are to\nfeel much more at the resurrection: \u201cThou Son of God, art thou come hither\nto torment us before the time?\u201d(374) Also, \u201cDepart, ye cursed, into\neverlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.\u201d(375) Again, \u201cIf\nGod spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and\ndelivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment,\u201d\n&c.(376) How unmeaning were these expressions, that the devils are\nappointed to eternal judgment; that fire is prepared for them; that they\nare now tormented and vexed by the glory of Christ, if there were no\ndevils at all! But since this point is not a subject of dispute with those\nwho give credit to the word of the Lord, but with those vain speculators\nwho are pleased with nothing but novelty, little good can be effected by\ntestimonies of Scripture. I consider myself as having done what I\nintended, which was to fortify the pious mind against such a species of\nerrors, with which restless men disturb themselves and others that are\nmore simple. But it was requisite to touch on it, lest any persons\ninvolved in that error, under a supposition that they have no adversary,\nshould become more slothful and incautious to resist him.\n\nXX. Yet let us not disdain to receive a pious delight from the works of\nGod, which every where present themselves to view in this very beautiful\ntheatre of the world. For this, as I have elsewhere observed, though not\nthe principal, is yet, in the order of nature, the first lesson of faith,\nto remember that, whithersoever we turn our eyes, all the things which we\nbehold are the works of God; and at the same time to consider, with pious\nmeditation, for what end God created them. Therefore to apprehend, by a\ntrue faith, what it is for our benefit to know concerning God, we must\nfirst of all understand the history of the creation of the world, as it is\nbriefly related by Moses, and afterwards more copiously illustrated by\nholy men, particularly by Basil and Ambrose. Thence we shall learn that\nGod, by the power of his Word and Spirit, created out of nothing the\nheaven and the earth; that from them he produced all things, animate and\ninanimate; distinguished by an admirable gradation the innumerable variety\nof things; to every species gave its proper nature, assigned its offices,\nand appointed its places and stations; and since all things are subject to\ncorruption, has, nevertheless, provided for the preservation of every\nspecies till the last day; that he therefore nourishes some by methods\nconcealed from us, from time to time infusing, as it were, new vigour into\nthem; that on some he has conferred the power of propagation, in order\nthat the whole species may not be extinct at their death; that he has thus\nwonderfully adorned heaven and earth with the utmost possible abundance,\nvariety, and beauty, like a large and splendid mansion, most exquisitely\nand copiously furnished; lastly, that, by creating man, and distinguishing\nhim with such splendid beauty, and with such numerous and great\nprivileges, he has exhibited in him a most excellent specimen of all his\nworks. But since it is not my design to treat at large of the creation of\nthe world, let it suffice to have again dropped these few hints by the\nway. For it is better, as I have just advised the reader, to seek for\nfuller information on this subject from Moses, and others who have\nfaithfully and diligently recorded the history of the world.\n\nXXI. It is useless to enter into a prolix disputation respecting the right\ntendency and legitimate design of a consideration of the works of God,\nsince this question has been, in a great measure, determined in another\nplace, and, as much as concerns our present purpose, may be despatched in\nfew words. Indeed, if we wished to explain how the inestimable wisdom,\npower, justice, and goodness, of God are manifested in the formation of\nthe world, no splendour or ornament of diction will equal the magnitude of\nso great a subject. And it is undoubtedly the will of the Lord, that we\nshould be continually employed in this holy meditation; that, while we\ncontemplate in all the creatures, as in so many mirrors, the infinite\nriches of his wisdom, justice, goodness, and power, we might not only take\na transient and cursory view of them, but might long dwell on the idea,\nseriously and faithfully revolve it in our minds, and frequently recall it\nto our memory. But, this being a didactic treatise, we must omit those\ntopics which require long declamations. To be brief, therefore, let the\nreaders know, that they have then truly apprehended by faith what is meant\nby God being the Creator of heaven and earth, if they, in the first place,\nfollow this universal rule, not to pass over, with ungrateful inattention\nor oblivion, those glorious perfections which God manifests in his\ncreatures; and, secondly, learn to make such an application to themselves\nas thoroughly to affect their hearts. The first point is exemplified, when\nwe consider how great must have been the Artist who disposed that\nmultitude of stars, which adorn the heaven, in such a regular order, that\nit is impossible to imagine any thing more beautiful to behold; who fixed\nsome in their stations, so that they cannot be moved; who granted to\nothers a freer course, but so that they never travel beyond their\nappointed limits; who so regulates the motions of all, that they measure\ndays and nights, months, years, and seasons of the year; and also reduces\nthe inequality of days, which we constantly witness, to such a medium that\nit occasions no confusion. So, also, when we observe his power in\nsustaining so great a mass, in governing the rapid revolutions of the\ncelestial machine, and the like. For these few examples sufficiently\ndeclare, what it is to recognize the perfections of God in the creation of\nthe world. Otherwise, were I desirous of pursuing the subject to its full\nextent, there would be no end; since there are as many miracles of Divine\npower, as many monuments of Divine goodness, as many proofs of Divine\nwisdom, as there are species of things in the world, and even as there are\nindividual things, either great or small.\n\nXXII. There remains the other point, which approaches more nearly to\nfaith; that, while we observe how God has appointed all things for our\nbenefit and safety, and at the same time perceive his power and grace in\nourselves, and the great benefits which he has conferred on us, we may\nthence excite ourselves to confide in him, to invoke him, to praise him,\nand to love him. Now, as I have just before suggested, God himself has\ndemonstrated, by the very order of creation, that he made all things for\nthe sake of man. For it was not without reason that he distributed the\nmaking of the world into six days; though it would have been no more\ndifficult for him to complete the whole work, in all its parts, at once,\nin a single moment, than to arrive at its completion by such progressive\nadvances. But in this he has been pleased to display his providence and\npaternal solicitude towards us, since, before he would make man, he\nprepared every thing which he foresaw would be useful or beneficial to\nhim. How great would be, now, the ingratitude to doubt whether we are\nregarded by this best of fathers, whom we perceive to have been solicitous\non our account before we existed! How impious would it be to tremble with\ndiffidence, lest at any time his benignity should desert us in our\nnecessities, which we see was displayed in the greatest affluence of all\nblessings provided for us while we were yet unborn! Besides, we are told\nby Moses,(377) that his liberality has subjected to us all that is\ncontained in the whole world. He certainly has not made this declaration\nin order to tantalize us with the empty name of such a donation. Therefore\nwe never shall be destitute of any thing which will conduce to our\nwelfare. Finally, to conclude, whenever we call God the Creator of heaven\nand earth, let us at the same time reflect, that the dispensation of all\nthose things which he has made is in his own power, and that we are his\nchildren, whom he has received into his charge and custody, to be\nsupported and educated; so that we may expect every blessing from him\nalone, and cherish a certain hope that he will never suffer us to want\nthose things which are necessary to our well\u2010being, that our hope may\ndepend on no other; that, whatever we need or desire, our prayers may be\ndirected to him, and that, from whatever quarter we receive any advantage,\nwe may acknowledge it to be his benefit, and confess it with thanksgiving;\nthat, being allured with such great sweetness of goodness and beneficence,\nwe may study to love and worship him with all our hearts.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XV. The State Of Man At His Creation, The Faculties Of The Soul,\nThe Divine Image, Free Will, And The Original Purity Of His Nature.\n\n\nWe must now treat of the creation of man, not only because he exhibits the\nmost noble and remarkable specimen of the Divine justice, wisdom, and\ngoodness, among all the works of God, but because, as we observed in the\nbeginning, we cannot attain to a clear and solid knowledge of God, without\na mutual acquaintance with ourselves. But though this is twofold,\u2014the\nknowledge of the condition in which we were originally created, and of\nthat into which we entered after the fall of Adam, (for indeed we should\nderive but little advantage from a knowledge of our creation, unless in\nthe lamentable ruin which has befallen us we discovered the corruption and\ndeformity of our nature,)\u2014yet we shall content ourselves at present with a\ndescription of human nature in its primitive integrity. And, indeed,\nbefore we proceed to the miserable condition in which man is now involved,\nit is necessary to understand the state in which he was first created. For\nwe must beware lest, in precisely pointing out the natural evils of man,\nwe seem to refer them to the Author of nature; since impious men suppose\nthat this pretext affords them a sufficient defence, if they can plead\nthat whatever defect or fault they have, proceeds in some measure from\nGod; nor do they hesitate, if reproved, to litigate with God himself, and\ntransfer to him the crime of which they are justly accused. And those who\nwould be thought to speak with more reverence concerning the Deity, yet\nreadily endeavour to excuse their depravity from nature, not considering\nthat they also, though in a more obscure manner, are guilty of defaming\nthe character of God; to whose dishonour it would redound, if nature could\nbe proved to have had any innate depravity at its formation. Since we see\nthe flesh, therefore, eagerly catching at every subterfuge, by which it\nsupposes that the blame of its evils may by any means be transferred from\nitself to any other, we must diligently oppose this perverseness. The\ncalamity of mankind must be treated in such a manner as to preclude all\ntergiversation, and to vindicate the Divine justice from every accusation.\nWe shall afterwards, in the proper place, see how far men are fallen from\nthat purity which was bestowed upon Adam. And first let it be understood,\nthat, by his being made of earth and clay, a restraint was laid upon\npride; since nothing is more absurd than for creatures to glory in their\nexcellence, who not only inhabit a cottage of clay, but who are themselves\ncomposed partly of dust and ashes.(378) But as God not only deigned to\nanimate the earthen vessel, but chose to make it the residence of an\nimmortal spirit, Adam might justly glory in so great an instance of the\nliberality of his Maker.\n\nII. That man consists of soul and body, ought not to be controverted. By\nthe \u201csoul\u201d I understand an immortal, yet created essence, which is the\nnobler part of him. Sometimes it is called a \u201cspirit;\u201d for though, when\nthese names are connected, they have a different signification, yet when\n\u201cspirit\u201d is used separately, it means the same as \u201csoul;\u201d as when Solomon,\nspeaking of death, says that \u201cthen the spirit shall return unto God, who\ngave it.\u201d(379) And Christ commending his spirit to the Father,(380) and\nStephen his to Christ,(381) intend no other than that, when the soul is\nliberated from the prison of the flesh, God is its perpetual keeper. Those\nwho imagine that the soul is called a spirit, because it is a breath or\nfaculty divinely infused into the body, but destitute of any essence, are\nproved to be in a gross error by the thing itself, and by the whole tenor\nof Scripture. It is true, indeed, that, while men are immoderately\nattached to the earth, they become stupid, and, being alienated from the\nFather of lights, are immersed in darkness, so that they consider not that\nthey shall survive after death; yet in the mean time, the light is not so\nentirely extinguished by the darkness, but that they are affected with\nsome sense of their immortality. Surely the conscience, which, discerning\nbetween good and evil, answers to the judgment of God, is an indubitable\nproof of an immortal spirit. For how could an affection or emotion,\nwithout any essence, penetrate to the tribunal of God, and inspire itself\nwith terror on account of its guilt? For the body is not affected by a\nfear of spiritual punishment; that falls only on the soul; whence it\nfollows, that it is possessed of an essence. Now, the very knowledge of\nGod sufficiently proves the immortality of the soul, which rises above the\nworld, since an evanescent breath or inspiration could not arrive at the\nfountain of life. Lastly, the many noble faculties with which the human\nmind is adorned, and which loudly proclaim that something Divine is\ninscribed on it, are so many testimonies of its immortal essence. For the\nsense which the brutes have, extends not beyond the body, or at most not\nbeyond the objects near it. But the agility of the human mind, looking\nthrough heaven and earth, and the secrets of nature, and comprehending in\nits intellect and memory all ages, digesting every thing in proper order,\nand concluding future events from those which are past, clearly\ndemonstrates that there is concealed within man something distinct from\nthe body. In our minds we form conceptions of the invisible God and of\nangels, to which the body is not at all competent. We apprehend what is\nright, just, and honest, which is concealed from the corporeal senses. The\nspirit, therefore, must be the seat of this intelligence. Even sleep\nitself, which, stupefying man, seems to divest him even of life, is no\nobscure proof of immortality; since it not only suggests to us ideas of\nthings which never happened, but also presages of future events. I briefly\ntouch those things which even profane writers magnificently extol in a\nmore splendid and ornamented diction; but with the pious reader the simple\nmention of them will be sufficient. Now, unless the soul were something\nessentially distinct from the body, the Scripture would not inform us that\nwe dwell in houses of clay,(382) and at death quit the tabernacle of the\nflesh;(383) that we put off the corruptible,(384) to receive a reward at\nthe last day, according to the respective conduct of each individual in\nthe body.(385) For certainly these and similar passages, which often\noccur, not only manifestly distinguish the soul from the body, but, by\ntransferring to it the name of \u201cman,\u201d indicate that it is the principal\npart of our nature. When Paul exhorts the faithful to cleanse themselves\nfrom all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit,(386) he points out two\nparts in which the defilement of sin resides. Peter also, when he called\nChrist the Shepherd and Bishop of souls,(387) would have spoken\nimproperly, if there were no souls over whom he could exercise that\noffice. Nor would there be any consistency in what he says concerning the\neternal salvation of souls, or in his injunction to purify the souls, or\nin his assertion that fleshly lusts war against the soul,(388) or in what\nthe author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that pastors watch to give\nan account of our souls,(389) unless souls had a proper essence. To the\nsame purpose is the place where Paul \u201ccalls God for a record upon his\nsoul,\u201d(390) because it could not be amenable to God, if it were not\ncapable of punishment; which is also more clearly expressed in the words\nof Christ, where he commands us to fear him, who, after having killed the\nbody, is able to cast the soul into hell.(391) Where the author of the\nEpistle to the Hebrews distinguishes between the fathers of our flesh, and\nGod, who is the only Father of spirits,(392) he could not assert the\nessence or existence of the soul in more express terms. Besides, unless\nthe soul survived after its liberation from the prison of the body, it was\nabsurd for Christ to represent the soul of Lazarus as enjoying happiness\nin the bosom of Abraham, and the soul of the rich man as condemned to\ndreadful torments.(393) Paul confirms the same point, by informing us that\nwe are absent from God as long as we dwell in the body, but that when\nabsent from the body we are present with the Lord.(394) Not to be too\nprolix on a subject of so little obscurity, I shall only add this from\nLuke, that it is reckoned among the errors of the Sadducees, that they\nbelieved not the existence of angels or of spirits.(395)\n\nIII. A solid proof of this point may also be gathered from man being said\nto be created in the image of God.(396) For though the glory of God is\ndisplayed in his external form, yet there is no doubt that the proper seat\nof his image is in the soul. I admit that external form, as it\ndistinguishes us from brutes, also exalts us more nearly to God; nor will\nI too vehemently contend with any one who would understand, by the image\nof God, that\n\n\n    \u201c\u2014\u2014 while the mute creation downward bend\n    Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,\n    Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes\n    Beholds his own hereditary skies.\u201d(397)\n\n\nOnly let it be decided that the image of God, which appears or sparkles in\nthese external characters, is spiritual. For Osiander, whose perverse\ningenuity in futile notions is proved by his writings, extending the image\nof God promiscuously to the body as well as to the soul, confounds heaven\nand earth together. He says, that the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit,\nfixed their image in man, because, even if Adam had remained in his\nintegrity, Christ would, nevertheless, have become man. Thus, according to\nhim, the body which had been destined for Christ was the exemplar and type\nof that corporeal figure which was then formed. But where will he find\nthat Christ is the image of the Spirit? I grant, indeed, that the glory of\nthe whole Deity shines in the person of the Mediator; but how shall the\neternal Word be called the image of the Spirit, whom he precedes in order?\nLastly, it subverts the distinction between the Son and Spirit, if the\nformer be denominated the image of the latter. Besides, I could wish to be\ninformed by him, how Christ, in the body which he has assumed, resembles\nthe Spirit, and by what characters or lineaments his similitude is\nexpressed. And since that speech, \u201cLet us make man in our own image,\u201d(398)\nbelongs also to the person of the Son, it follows that he is the image of\nhimself; which is altogether repugnant to reason. Moreover, if the notion\nof Osiander be received, man was formed only to the type or exemplar of\nthe humanity of Christ; and the idea from which Adam was taken was Christ,\nas about to be clothed in flesh; whereas the Scripture teaches, in a very\ndifferent sense, that man was \u201ccreated in the image of God.\u201d There is more\nplausibility in the subtlety of those who maintain that Adam was created\nin the image of God, because he was conformed to Christ, who is the only\nimage of God. But this also is destitute of solidity. There is no small\ncontroversy concerning \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d among expositors who seek\nfor a difference, whereas in reality there is none, between the two words;\n\u201clikeness\u201d being only added by way of explanation. In the first place, we\nknow that it is the custom of the Hebrews to use repetitions, in which\nthey express one thing twice. In the next place, as to the thing itself,\nthere is no doubt but man is called the image of God, on account of his\nlikeness to God. Hence it appears that those persons make themselves\nridiculous who display more subtlety in criticising on these terms,\nwhether they confine _zelem_, that is, \u201cimage,\u201d to the substance of the\nsoul, and _demuth_, that is, \u201clikeness,\u201d to its qualities, or whether they\nbring forward any different interpretation. Because, when God determined\nto create man in his own image, that expression being rather obscure, he\nrepeats the same idea in this explanatory phrase, \u201cafter our likeness;\u201d as\nthough he had said that he was about to make man, in whom, as in an image,\nhe would give a representation of himself by the characters of resemblance\nwhich he would impress upon him. Therefore Moses, a little after, reciting\nthe same thing, introduces the image of God, but makes no mention of his\nlikeness. The objection of Osiander is quite frivolous, that it is not a\npart of man, or the soul with its faculties, that is called the image of\nGod, but the whole Adam, who received his name from the earth whence he\nwas taken; it will be deemed frivolous, I say, by every rational reader.\nFor when the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore made\nsubject to death; nor, on the other hand, when man is called a rational\nanimal, does reason or intelligence therefore belong to the body. Though\nthe soul, therefore, is not the whole man, yet there is no absurdity in\ncalling him the image of God with relation to the soul; although I retain\nthe principle which I have just laid down, that the image of God includes\nall the excellence in which the nature of man surpasses all the other\nspecies of animals. This term, therefore, denotes the integrity which Adam\npossessed, when he was endued with a right understanding, when he had\naffections regulated by reason, and all his senses governed in proper\norder, and when, in the excellency of his nature, he truly resembled the\nexcellence of his Creator. And though the principal seat of the Divine\nimage was in the mind and heart, or in the soul and its faculties, yet\nthere was no part of man, not even the body, which was not adorned with\nsome rays of its glory. It is certain that the lineaments of the Divine\nglory are conspicuous in every part of the world; whence it may be\nconcluded, that where the image of God is said to be in man, there is\nimplied a tacit antithesis, which exalts man above all the other\ncreatures, and as it were separates him from the vulgar herd. It is not to\nbe denied that angels were created in the similitude of God, since our\nhighest perfection will consist, according to the declaration of Christ,\nin being like them.(399) But it is not in vain that Moses celebrates the\nfavour of God towards us by this peculiar title; especially as he compares\nman only to visible creatures.\n\nIV. No complete definition of this image, however, appears yet to be\ngiven, unless it be more clearly specified in what faculties man excels,\nand in what respects he ought to be accounted a mirror of the Divine\nglory. But that cannot be better known from any thing, than from the\nreparation of his corrupted nature. There is no doubt that Adam, when he\nfell from his dignity, was by this defection alienated from God.\nWherefore, although we allow that the Divine image was not utterly\nannihilated and effaced in him, yet it was so corrupted that whatever\nremains is but horrible deformity. And therefore the beginning of our\nrecovery and salvation is the restoration which we obtain through Christ,\nwho on this account is called the second Adam; because he restores us to\ntrue and perfect integrity. For although Paul, opposing the quickening\nSpirit received by the faithful from Christ, to the living soul in which\nAdam was created,(400) celebrates the degree of grace displayed in\nregeneration as superior to that manifested in creation, yet he\ncontradicts not that other capital point, that this is the end of\nregeneration, that Christ may form us anew in the image of God. Therefore\nhe elsewhere informs us, that \u201cthe new man is renewed in knowledge after\nthe image of him that created him.\u201d(401) With which corresponds the\nfollowing exhortation\u2014\u201cPut on the new man, which after God is created in\nrighteousness and true holiness.\u201d(402) Now, we may see what Paul\ncomprehends in this renovation. In the first place, he mentions knowledge,\nand in the next place, sincere righteousness and holiness; whence we\ninfer, that in the beginning the image of God was conspicuous in the light\nof the mind, in the rectitude of the heart, and in the soundness of all\nthe parts of our nature. For though I grant that the forms of expression\nare synecdochical, signifying the whole by a part, yet this is an axiom\nwhich cannot be overturned, that what holds the principal place in the\nrenovation of the Divine image, must also have held the same place in the\ncreation of it at first. To the same purpose is another passage of the\nApostle, that \u201cwe, with open face beholding the glory of Christ, are\nchanged into the same image.\u201d(403) We see, now, how Christ is the most\nperfect image of God, to which being conformed, we are so restored that we\nbear the Divine image in true piety, righteousness, purity, and\nunderstanding. This position being established, the imagination of\nOsiander, about the figure of the body, immediately vanishes of itself.\nThe passage where Paul calls the man \u201cthe image and glory of God,\u201d(404) to\nthe exclusion of the woman from that degree of honour, appears from the\ncontext to be confined to political subordination. But that the image\nwhich has been mentioned comprehended whatever relates to spiritual and\neternal life, has now, I think, been sufficiently proved. John confirms\nthe same in other words, by asserting that \u201cthe life\u201d which was from the\nbeginning in the eternal Word of God, \u201cwas the light of men.\u201d(405) For as\nhe intended to praise the singular favour of God which exalts man above\nall the other animals; to separate him from the common number, because he\nhas attained no vulgar life, but a life connected with the light of\nintelligence and reason,\u2014he at the same time shows how he was made after\nthe image of God. Therefore, since the image of God is the uncorrupted\nexcellence of human nature, which shone in Adam before his defection, but\nwas afterwards so corrupted, and almost obliterated, that nothing remains\nfrom the ruin but what is confused, mutilated, and defiled,\u2014it is now\npartly visible in the elect, inasmuch as they are regenerated by the\nSpirit, but it will obtain its full glory in heaven. But that we may know\nthe parts of which it consists, it is necessary to treat of the faculties\nof the soul. For that speculation of Augustine is far from being solid,\nthat the soul is a mirror of the Trinity, because it contains\nunderstanding, will, and memory. Nor is there any probability in the\nopinion which places the similitude of God in the dominion committed to\nman; as though he resembled God only in this character, that he was\nconstituted heir and possessor of all things, whereas it must properly be\nsought _in_ him, not _without_ him; it is an internal excellence of the\nsoul.\n\nV. But, before I proceed any further, it is necessary to combat the\nManich\u00e6an error, which Servetus has attempted to revive and propagate in\nthe present age. Because God is said to have breathed into man the breath\nof life,(406) they supposed that the soul was an emanation from the\nsubstance of God; as though some portion of the infinite Deity had been\nconveyed into man. But it may be easily and briefly shown how many\nshameful and gross absurdities are the necessary consequences of this\ndiabolical error. For if the soul of man be an emanation from the essence\nof God, it will follow that the Divine nature is not only mutable and\nsubject to passions, but also to ignorance, desires, and vices of every\nkind. Nothing is more inconstant than man, because his soul is agitated\nand variously distracted by contrary motions; he frequently mistakes\nthrough ignorance; he is vanquished by some of the smallest temptations;\nwe know that the soul is the receptacle of every kind of impurity;\u2014all\nwhich we must ascribe to the Divine nature, if we believe the soul to be\npart of the essence of God, or a secret influx of the Deity. Who would not\ndread such a monstrous tenet? It is a certain truth, quoted by Paul from\nAratus, that \u201cwe are the offspring of God,\u201d but in quality, not in\nsubstance; forasmuch as he has adorned us with Divine endowments.(407) But\nto divide the essence of the Creator, that every creature may possess a\npart of it, indicates extreme madness. It must therefore be concluded\nbeyond all doubt, notwithstanding the Divine image is impressed on the\nsouls of men, that they were no less created than the angels. And creation\nis not a transfusion, but an origination of existence from nothing. Nor,\nbecause the spirit is given by God, and returns to him on its departure\nfrom the body, is it immediately to be asserted, that it was plucked off\nlike a branch from his essence. And on this point also Osiander, while he\nis elated with his own illusions, has involved himself in an impious\nerror, not acknowledging the image of God in man without his essential\nrighteousness, as though God could not, by the inconceivable power of his\nSpirit, render us conformable to himself, unless Christ were to transfuse\nhimself substantially into us. However some persons may attempt to gloss\nover these delusions, they will never so far blind the eyes of sensible\nreaders, as to prevent their perceiving that they savour of the error of\nthe Manich\u00e6ans. And where Paul treats of the restoration of this image, we\nmay readily conclude from his words, that man was conformed to God not by\nan influx of his substance, but by the grace and power of his Spirit. For\nhe says that, by beholding the glory of Christ, we are transformed into\nthe same image as by the Spirit of the Lord;(408) who certainly operates\nin us not in such a manner as to render us consubstantial with God.\n\nVI. It would be folly to seek for a definition of the soul from the\nheathen philosophers, of whom Plato is almost the only one who has plainly\nasserted it to be an immortal substance. Others indeed, the disciples of\nSocrates, hint at it, but with great doubts; no one clearly teaches that\nof which he was not persuaded himself. The sentiment of Plato, therefore,\nis more correct, because he considers the image of God as being in the\nsoul. The other sects so confine its powers and faculties to the present\nlife, that they leave it nothing beyond the body. But we have before\nstated from the Scripture, that it is an incorporeal substance; now we\nshall add, that although it is not properly contained in any place, yet,\nbeing put into the body, it inhabits it as its dwelling, not only to\nanimate all its parts, and render the organs fit and useful for their\nrespective operations, but also to hold the supremacy in the government of\nhuman life; and that not only in the concerns of the terrestrial life, but\nlikewise to excite to the worship of God. Though this last point is not so\nevident in the state of corruption, yet there remain some relics of it\nimpressed even on our very vices. For whence proceeds the great concern of\nmen about their reputation, but from shame? but whence proceeds shame,\nunless from a respect for virtue? The principle and cause of which is,\nthat they understand themselves to have been born for the cultivation of\nrighteousness; and in which are included the seeds of religion. But as,\nwithout controversy, man was created to aspire to a heavenly life, so it\nis certain that the knowledge of it was impressed on his soul. And,\nindeed, man would be deprived of the principal use of his understanding,\nif he were ignorant of his felicity, the perfection of which consists in\nbeing united to God. Thus the chief operation of the soul is to aspire\nafter it; and, therefore, the more a man studies to approach to God, the\nmore he proves himself a rational creature. Some maintain that in man\nthere are more souls than one, a sensitive and a rational one; but\nnotwithstanding some appearance of probability in what they adduce, yet,\nas there is nothing solid in their arguments, we must reject them, unless\nwe are fond of tormenting ourselves with frivolous and useless things.\nThey say that there is a great repugnancy between the organic motions and\nthe rational part of the soul; as though reason were not also at variance\nwith itself, and some of its counsels were not in opposition to others,\nlike hostile armies. But as this confusion proceeds from the depravity of\nnature, it affords no ground for concluding that there are two souls,\nbecause the faculties are not sufficiently harmonious with each other. But\nall curious discussion respecting the faculties themselves I leave to the\nphilosophers; a simple definition will suffice us for the edification of\npiety. I confess, indeed, that the things which they teach are true, and\nnot only entertaining to be known, but useful and well digested by them;\nnor do I prohibit those who are desirous of learning from the study of\nthem. I admit, then, in the first place, that there are five senses, which\nPlato would rather call organs, by which all objects are conveyed into a\ncommon sensory, as into a general repository; that next follows the fancy\nor imagination, which discerns the objects apprehended by the common\nsensory; next reason, to which belongs universal judgment; lastly, the\nunderstanding, which steadily and quietly contemplates the objects\nrevolved and considered by reason. And thus to the understanding, reason,\nand imagination, the three intellectual faculties of the soul, correspond\nalso the three appetitive ones\u2014the will, whose place it is to choose those\nthings which the understanding and reason propose to it; the irascible\nfaculty, which embraces the things offered to it by reason and\nimagination; and the concupiscible faculty, which apprehends the objects\npresented by the imagination and sensation. Though these things are true,\nor at least probable, yet, since I fear that they will involve us in their\nobscurity rather than assist us, I think they ought to be omitted. If any\none chooses to make a different distribution of the powers of the soul, so\nas to call one appetitive, which, though void of reason in itself, obeys\nreason, if it be under the guidance of any other faculty; and to call\nanother intellective, which is itself a partaker of reason; I shall not\nmuch oppose it. Nor have I any wish to combat the sentiment of Aristotle,\nthat there are three principles of action\u2014sense, intellect, and appetite.\nBut let us rather choose a division placed within the comprehension of\nall, and which certainly cannot be sought in the philosophers. For when\nthey wish to speak with the greatest simplicity, they divide the soul into\nappetite and intellect, and make both these twofold. The latter, they say,\nis sometimes contemplative, being content merely with knowledge, and\nhaving no tendency to action,\u2014which Cicero thinks is designated by the\nword _ingenium_,\u2014and sometimes practical, variously influencing the will\nwith the apprehension of good or evil. This division comprehends the\nscience of living in a just and virtuous manner. The latter, that is,\nappetite, they divide into will and concupiscence; they call it \u201cwill,\u201d\nwhenever appetite obeys reason; but when, shaking off the yoke of reason,\nit runs into intemperance, they give it the name of \u201cconcupiscence.\u201d Thus\nthey imagine that man is always possessed of reason sufficient for the\nproper government of himself.\n\nVII. We are constrained to depart a little from this mode of instruction,\nbecause the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature\nproceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very\ndifferent states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following\ndivision\u2014that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present\ndesign, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the\nunderstanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively\nappear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to\nchoose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good;\nto abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to\ndiscuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of\nitself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the\nappetitive intellect. Without perplexing ourselves with unnecessary\nquestions, it should be sufficient for us to know that the understanding\nis, as it were, the guide and governor of the soul; that the will always\nrespects its authority, and waits for its judgment in its desires. For\nwhich reason Aristotle himself truly observed, that avoidance and pursuit\nin the appetite, bear a resemblance to affirmation and negation in the\nmind. How certain the government of the understanding is in the direction\nof the will, we shall see in another part of this work. Here we only\nintend to show that no power can be found in the soul, which may not\nproperly be referred to one or the other of those two members. But in this\nmanner we comprehend the sense in the understanding, which some\ndistinguish thus: sense, they say, inclines to pleasure, whereas the\nunderstanding follows what is good; that thence it happens that the\nappetite of sense becomes concupiscence and lust, and the affection of the\nunderstanding becomes will. But instead of the word \u201cappetite,\u201d which they\nprefer, I use the word \u201cwill,\u201d which is more common.\n\nVIII. God has furnished the soul of man, therefore, with a mind capable of\ndiscerning good from evil, and just from unjust; and of discovering, by\nthe light of reason, what ought to be pursued or avoided; whence the\nphilosophers called this directing faculty \u03c4\u03bf \u1f20\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, the principal or\ngoverning part. To this he has annexed the will, on which depends the\nchoice. The primitive condition of man was ennobled with those eminent\nfaculties; he possessed reason, understanding, prudence, and judgment, not\nonly for the government of his life on earth, but to enable him to ascend\neven to God and eternal felicity. To these was added choice, to direct the\nappetites, and regulate all the organic motions; so that the will should\nbe entirely conformed to the government of reason. In this integrity man\nwas endued with free will, by which, if he had chosen, he might have\nobtained eternal life. For here it would be unreasonable to introduce the\nquestion respecting the secret predestination of God, because we are not\ndiscussing what might possibly have happened or not, but what was the real\nnature of man. Adam, therefore, could have stood if he would, since he\nfell merely by his own will; but because his will was flexible to either\nside, and he was not endued with constancy to persevere, therefore he so\neasily fell. Yet his choice of good and evil was free; and not only so,\nbut his mind and will were possessed of consummate rectitude, and all his\norganic parts were rightly disposed to obedience, till, destroying\nhimself, he corrupted all his excellencies. Hence proceeded the darkness\nwhich overspread the minds of the philosophers, because they sought for a\ncomplete edifice among ruins, and for beautiful order in the midst of\nconfusion. They held this principle, that man would not be a rational\nanimal, unless he were endued with a free choice of good or evil; they\nconceived also that otherwise all difference between virtue and vice would\nbe destroyed, unless man regulated his life according to his own\ninclination. Thus far it had been well, if there had been no change in\nman, of which as they were ignorant, it is not to be wondered at if they\nconfound heaven and earth together. But those who profess themselves to be\ndisciples of Christ, and yet seek for free will in man, now lost and\noverwhelmed in spiritual ruin, in striking out a middle path between the\nopinions of the philosophers and the doctrine of heaven, are evidently\ndeceived, so that they touch neither heaven nor earth. But these things\nwill be better introduced in the proper place. At present be it only\nremembered, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all\nhis posterity, who, deriving their original from him in his corrupted\nstate, have contracted an hereditary defilement. For all the parts of his\nsoul were formed with the utmost rectitude; he enjoyed soundness of mind,\nand a will free to the choice of good. If any object, that he was placed\nin a dangerous situation on account of the imbecility of this faculty, I\nreply, that the station in which he was placed was sufficient to deprive\nhim of all excuse. For it would have been unreasonable that God should be\nconfined to this condition, to make man so as to be altogether incapable\neither of choosing or of committing any sin. It is true that such a nature\nwould have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as though he\nhad been under any obligation to bestow this upon man, were unreasonable\nand unjust in the extreme; since it was at his choice to bestow as little\nas he pleased. But why he did not sustain him with the power of\nperseverance, remains concealed in his mind; but it is our duty to\nrestrain our investigations within the limits of sobriety. He had received\nthe power, indeed, if he chose to exert it; but he had not the will to use\nthat power; for the consequence of this will would have been perseverance.\nYet there is no excuse for him; he received so much, that he was the\nvoluntary procurer of his own destruction; but God was under no necessity\nto give him any other than an indifferent and mutable will, that from his\nfall he might educe matter for his own glory.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XVI. God\u2019s Preservation And Support Of The World By His Power, And\nHis Government Of Every Part Of It By His Providence.\n\n\nTo represent God as a Creator only for a moment, who entirely finished all\nhis work at once, were frigid and jejune; and in this it behoves us\nespecially to differ from the heathen, that the presence of the Divine\npower may appear to us no less in the perpetual state of the world than in\nits first origin. For although the minds even of impious men, by the mere\ncontemplation of earth and heaven, are constrained to rise to the Creator,\nyet faith has a way peculiar to itself to assign to God the whole praise\nof creation. To which purpose is that assertion of an Apostle before\ncited, that it is only \u201cthrough faith that we understand the worlds were\nframed by the word of God;\u201d(409) because, unless we proceed to his\nprovidence, we have no correct conception of the meaning of this article,\n\u201cthat God is the Creator;\u201d however we may appear to comprehend it in our\nminds, and to confess it with our tongues. The carnal sense, when it has\nonce viewed the power of God in the creation, stops there; and when it\nproceeds the furthest, it only examines and considers the wisdom, and\npower, and goodness, of the Author in producing such a work, which\nspontaneously present themselves to the view even of those who are\nunwilling to observe them. In the next place, it conceives of some general\noperation of God in preserving and governing it, on which the power of\nmotion depends. Lastly, it supposes that the vigour originally infused by\nGod into all things is sufficient for their sustentation. But faith ought\nto penetrate further. When it has learned that he is the Creator of all\nthings, it should immediately conclude that he is also their perpetual\ngovernor and preserver; and that not by a certain universal motion,\nactuating the whole machine of the world, and all its respective parts,\nbut by a particular providence sustaining, nourishing, and providing for\nevery thing which he has made.(410) Thus David, having briefly premised\nthat the world was made by God, immediately descends to the continual\ncourse of his providence: \u201cBy the word of the Lord were the heavens made;\nand all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.\u201d(411) He afterwards\nadds, \u201cThe Lord beholdeth all the sons of men;\u201d(412) and subjoins more to\nthe same purpose. For though all men argue not so skilfully, yet, since it\nwould not be credible that God was concerned about human affairs, if he\nwere not the Maker of the world, and no one seriously believes that the\nworld was made by God, who is not persuaded that he takes care of his own\nworks, it is not without reason that David conducts us by a most excellent\nseries from one to the other. In general, indeed, both philosophers teach,\nand the minds of men conceive, that all the parts of the world are\nquickened by the secret inspiration of God. But they go not so far as\nDavid, who is followed by all the pious, when he says, \u201cThese all wait\nupon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou\ngivest them, they gather; thou openest thine hand, they are filled with\ngood. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their\nbreath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit,\nthey are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth.\u201d(413) Though\nthey subscribe to the assertion of Paul, that in God \u201cwe live, and move,\nand have our being,\u201d(414) yet they are very far from a serious sense of\nhis favour, celebrated by the Apostle; because they have no apprehension\nof the special care of God, from which alone his paternal favour is known.\n\nII. For the clearer manifestation of this difference, it must be observed\nthat the providence of God, as it is taught in Scripture, is opposed to\nfortune and fortuitous accidents. Now, since it has been the common\npersuasion in all ages, and is also in the present day almost the\nuniversal opinion, that all things happen fortuitously, it is certain that\nevery correct sentiment concerning providence is not only obscured, but\nalmost buried in oblivion by this erroneous notion. If any one falls into\nthe hands of robbers, or meets with wild beasts; if by a sudden storm he\nis shipwrecked on the ocean; if he is killed by the fall of a house or a\ntree; if another, wandering through deserts, finds relief for his penury,\nor, after having been tossed about by the waves, reaches the port, and\nescapes, as it were, but a hair\u2019s\u2010breadth from death,\u2014carnal reason will\nascribe all these occurrences, both prosperous and adverse, to fortune.\nBut whoever has been taught from the mouth of Christ, that the hairs of\nhis head are all numbered,(415) will seek further for a cause, and\nconclude that all events are governed by the secret counsel of God. And\nrespecting things inanimate, it must be admitted, that, though they are\nall naturally endued with their peculiar properties, yet they exert not\ntheir power, any further than as they are directed by the present hand of\nGod. They are, therefore, no other than instruments into which God infuses\nas much efficacy as he pleases, bending and turning them to any actions,\naccording to his will. There is no power among all the creatures more\nwonderful or illustrious, than that of the sun. For, besides his\nillumination of the whole world by his splendour, how astonishing it is\nthat he cherishes and enlivens all animals with his heat; with his rays\ninspires fecundity into the earth; from the seeds, genially warmed in her\nbosom, produces a green herbage, which, being supported by fresh\nnourishment, he increases and strengthens till it rises into stalks; feeds\nthem with perpetual exhalations, till they grow into blossoms, and from\nblossoms to fruit, which he then by his influences brings to maturity;\nthat trees, likewise, and vines, by his genial warmth, first put forth\nleaves, then blossoms, and from the blossoms produce their fruit! But the\nLord, to reserve the praise of all these things entirely to himself, was\npleased that the light should exist, and the earth abound in every kind of\nherbs and fruits, before he created the sun. A pious man, therefore, will\nnot make the sun either a principal or necessary cause of those things\nwhich existed before the creation of the sun, but only an instrument which\nGod uses, because it is his pleasure so to do; whereas he would find no\nmore difficulty in acting by himself without that luminary. Lastly, as we\nread that the sun remained in one situation for two days at the prayer of\nJoshua,(416) and that his shadow made a retrograde motion of ten degrees\nfor the sake of king Hezekiah,(417) God has declared by these few\nmiracles, that the daily rising and setting of the sun is not from a blind\ninstinct of nature, but that he himself governs his course, to renew the\nmemory of his paternal favour towards us. Nothing is more natural than the\nsuccession of spring to winter, of summer to spring, and of autumn to\nsummer. But there is so great a diversity and inequality discovered in\nthis series, that it is obvious that every year, month, and day, is\ngoverned by a new and particular providence of God.\n\nIII. And, indeed, God asserts his possession of omnipotence, and claims\nour acknowledgment of this attribute; not such as is imagined by sophists,\nvain, idle, and almost asleep, but vigilant, efficacious, operative, and\nengaged in continual action; not a mere general principle of confused\nmotion, as if he should command a river to flow through the channels once\nmade for it, but a power constantly exerted on every distinct and\nparticular movement. For he is accounted omnipotent, not because he is\nable to act, yet sits down in idleness, or continues by a general instinct\nthe order of nature originally appointed by him; but because he governs\nheaven and earth by his providence, and regulates all things in such a\nmanner that nothing happens but according to his counsel. For when it is\nsaid in the Psalms, that he does whatsoever he pleases,(418) it denotes\nhis certain and deliberate will. For it would be quite insipid to expound\nthe words of the Prophet in the philosophical manner, that God is the\nprime agent, because he is the principle and cause of all motion; whereas\nthe faithful should rather encourage themselves in adversity with this\nconsolation, that they suffer no affliction, but by the ordination and\ncommand of God, because they are under his hand. But if the government of\nGod be thus extended to all his works, it is a puerile cavil to limit it\nto the influence and course of nature. And they not only defraud God of\nhis glory, but themselves of a very useful doctrine, who confine the\nDivine providence within such narrow bounds, as though he permitted all\nthings to proceed in an uncontrolled course, according to a perpetual law\nof nature; for nothing would exceed the misery of man, if he were exposed\nto all the motions of the heaven, air, earth, and waters. Besides, this\nnotion would shamefully diminish the singular goodness of God towards\nevery individual. David exclaims, that infants yet hanging on the breasts\nof their mothers are sufficiently eloquent to celebrate the glory of\nGod;(419) because, as soon as they are born, they find aliment prepared\nfor them by his heavenly care. This, indeed, is generally true; yet it\ncannot escape the observation of our eyes and senses, being evidently\nproved by experience, that some mothers have breasts full and copious, but\nothers almost dry; as it pleases God to provide more liberally for one,\nbut more sparingly for another. But they who ascribe just praise to the\nDivine omnipotence, receive from this a double advantage. In the first\nplace, he must have ample ability to bless them, who possesses heaven and\nearth, and whose will all the creatures regard so as to devote themselves\nto his service. And, secondly, they may securely repose in his protection,\nto whose will are subject all those evils which can be feared from any\nquarter; by whose power Satan is restrained, with all his furies, and all\nhis machinations; on whose will depends all that is inimical to our\nsafety; nor is there any thing else by which those immoderate and\nsuperstitious fears, which we frequently feel on the sight of dangers, can\nbe corrected or appeased. We are superstitiously timid, I say, if,\nwhenever creatures menace or terrify us, we are frightened, as though they\nhad of themselves the power to hurt us, or could fortuitously injure us;\nor as if against their injuries God were unable to afford us sufficient\naid. For example, the Prophet forbids the children of God to fear the\nstars and signs of heaven,(420) as is the custom of unbelievers. He\ncertainly condemns not every kind of fear. But when infidels transfer the\ngovernment of the world from God to the stars, pretending that their\nhappiness or misery depends on the decrees and presages of the stars, and\nnot on the will of God, the consequence is, that their fear is withdrawn\nfrom him, whom alone they ought to regard, and is placed on stars and\ncomets. Whoever, then, desires to avoid this infidelity, let him\nconstantly remember, that in the creatures there is no erratic power, or\naction, or motion; but that they are so governed by the secret counsel of\nGod, that nothing can happen but what is subject to his knowledge, and\ndecreed by his will.\n\nIV. First, then, let the readers know that what is called providence\ndescribes God, not as idly beholding from heaven the transactions which\nhappen in the world, but as holding the helm of the universe, and\nregulating all events. Thus it belongs no less to his hands than to his\neyes. When Abraham said to his son, \u201cGod will provide,\u201d(421) he intended\nnot only to assert his prescience of a future event, but to leave the care\nof a thing unknown to the will of him who frequently puts an end to\ncircumstances of perplexity and confusion. Whence it follows, that\nprovidence consists in action; for it is ignorant trifling to talk of mere\nprescience. Not quite so gross is the error of those who attribute to God\na government, as I have observed, of a confused and promiscuous kind;\nacknowledging that God revolves and impels the machine of the world, with\nall its parts, by a general motion, without peculiarly directing the\naction of each individual creature. Yet even this error is not to be\ntolerated. For they maintain that this providence, which they call\nuniversal, is no impediment either to all the creatures being actuated\ncontingently, or to man turning himself hither or thither at the free\nchoice of his own will. And they make the following partition between God\nand man; that God by his power inspires him with motions, enabling him to\nact according to the tendency of the nature with which he is endued; but\nthat man governs his actions by his own voluntary choice. In short, they\nconceive, that the world, human affairs, and men themselves, are governed\nby the power of God, but not by his appointment. I speak not of the\nEpicureans, who have always infested the world, who dream of a god\nabsorbed in sloth and inactivity; and of others no less erroneous, who\nformerly pretended that the dominion of God extended over the middle\nregion of the air, but that he left inferior things to fortune; since the\nmute creatures themselves sufficiently exclaim against such evident\nstupidity. My present design is to refute that opinion, which has almost\ngenerally prevailed, which, conceding to God a sort of blind and uncertain\nmotion, deprives him of the principal thing, which is his directing and\ndisposing, by his incomprehensible wisdom, all things to their proper end;\nand thus, robbing God of the government of the world, it makes him the\nruler of it in name only, and not in reality. For, pray, what is\ngoverning, but presiding in such a manner, as to rule, by fixed decrees,\nthose over whom you preside? Yet I reject not altogether what they assert\nconcerning universal providence, provided they, on their part admit that\nGod governs the world, not merely because he preserves the order of nature\nfixed by himself, but because he exercises a peculiar care over every one\nof his works. It is true that all things are actuated by a secret instinct\nof nature, as though they obeyed the eternal command of God, and that what\nGod has once appointed, appears to proceed from voluntary inclination in\nthe creatures. And to this may be referred the declaration of Christ, that\nhis Father and himself had always been working, even from the\nbeginning;(422) and the assertion of Paul, that \u201cin him we live, and move,\nand have our being;\u201d(423) and also what is observed by the author of the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, with a design to prove the Divinity of Christ,\nthat all things are sustained by the word of his power.(424) But they act\nvery improperly in concealing and obscuring, by this pretext, the doctrine\nof a particular providence, which is asserted in such plain and clear\ntestimonies of Scripture, that it is surprising how any one could\nentertain a doubt concerning it. And, certainly, they who conceal it with\nthis veil which I have mentioned, are obliged to correct themselves by\nadding, that many things happen through the peculiar care of God; but this\nthey erroneously restrict to some particular acts. Wherefore we have to\nprove, that God attends to the government of particular events, and that\nthey all proceed from his determinate counsel, in such a manner that there\ncan be no such thing as fortuitous contingence.\n\nV. If we grant that the principle of motion originates from God, but that\nall things are spontaneously or accidentally carried whither the bias of\nnature impels them, the mutual vicissitudes of day and night, of winter\nand summer, will be the work of God, inasmuch as he has distributed to\neach its respective parts, and prescribed to them a certain law; that is,\nthis would be the case if with even tenor they always observed the same\nmeasure, days succeeding to nights, months to months, and years to years.\nBut sometimes excessive heats and drought parch and burn the fruits of the\nearth; sometimes unseasonable rains injure the crops of corn, and sudden\ncalamities are occasioned by showers of hail and storms: this will not be\nthe work of God; unless, perhaps, as either clouds or serene weather, or\ncold or heat, derive their origin from the opposition of the stars and\nother natural causes. But this representation leaves no room for God to\ndisplay or exercise his paternal favour, or his judgments. If they say\nthat God is sufficiently beneficent to man, because he infuses into heaven\nand earth an ordinary power, by which they supply him with food, it is a\nvery flimsy and profane notion; as though the fecundity of one year were\nnot the singular benediction of God, and as though penury and famine were\nnot his malediction and vengeance. But as it would be tedious to collect\nall the reasons for rejecting this error, let us be content with the\nauthority of God himself. In the law and in the prophets he frequently\ndeclares, that whenever he moistens the earth with dew or with rain, he\naffords a testimony of his favour; and that, on the contrary, when, at his\ncommand, heaven becomes hard as iron, when the crops of corn are blasted\nand otherwise destroyed, and when showers of hail and storms molest the\nfields, he gives a proof of his certain and special vengeance. If we\nbelieve these things, it is certain that not a drop of rain falls but at\nthe express command of God. David indeed praises the general providence of\nGod, because \u201che giveth food to the young ravens which cry;\u201d(425) but when\nGod himself threatens animals with famine, does he not plainly declare,\nthat he feeds all living creatures, sometimes with a smaller allowance,\nsometimes with a larger, as he pleases? It is puerile, as I have already\nobserved, to restrain this to particular acts; whereas Christ says,\nwithout any exception, that not a sparrow of the least value falls to the\nground without the will of the Father.(426) Certainly, if the flight of\nbirds be directed by the unerring counsel of God, we must be constrained\nto confess with the Prophet, that, though \u201che dwelleth on high,\u201d yet \u201che\nhumbleth himself to behold the things which are in heaven and in the\nearth.\u201d(427)\n\nVI. But as we know that the world was made chiefly for the sake of\nmankind, we must also observe this end in the government of it. The\nProphet Jeremiah exclaims, \u201cI know that the way of man is not in himself:\nit is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.\u201d(428) And Solomon:\n\u201cMan\u2019s goings are of the Lord: how can a man then understand his own\nway?\u201d(429) Now, let them say that man is actuated by God according to the\nbias of his nature, but that he directs that influence according to his\nown pleasure. If this could be asserted with truth, man would have the\nfree choice of his own ways. That, perhaps, they will deny, because he can\ndo nothing independently of the power of God. But since it is evident that\nboth the Prophet and Solomon ascribe to God choice and appointment, as\nwell as power, this by no means extricates them from the difficulty. But\nSolomon, in another place, beautifully reproves this temerity of men, who\npredetermine on an end for themselves, without regard to God, as though\nthey were not led by his hand: \u201cThe preparation of the heart in man,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cand the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.\u201d(430) It is, indeed,\na ridiculous madness for miserable men to resolve on undertaking any work\nindependently of God, whilst they cannot even speak a word but what he\nchooses. Moreover, the Scripture, more fully to express that nothing is\ntransacted in the world but according to his destination, shows that those\nthings are subject to him which appear most fortuitous. For what would you\nbe more ready to attribute to chance, than when a limb broken off from a\ntree kills a passing traveller? But very different is the decision of the\nLord, who acknowledges that he has delivered him into the hand of the\nslayer.(431) Who, likewise, does not leave lots to the blindness of\nfortune? Yet the Lord leaves them not, but claims the disposal of them\nhimself. He teaches us that it is not by any power of their own that lots\nare cast into the lap(432) and drawn out; but the only thing which could\nbe ascribed to chance, he declares to belong to himself. To the same\npurpose is another passage from Solomon: \u201cThe poor and the deceitful man\nmeet together: the Lord enlighteneth the eyes of them both.\u201d(433) For\nalthough the poor and the rich are blended together in the world, yet, as\ntheir respective conditions are assigned to them by Divine appointment, he\nsuggests that God, who enlightens all, is not blind, and thus exhorts the\npoor to patience; because those who are discontented with their lot, are\nendeavouring to shake off the burden imposed on them by God. Thus also\nanother Prophet rebukes profane persons, who attribute it to human\nindustry, or to fortune, that some men remain in obscurity, and others\nrise to honours: \u201cPromotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the\nwest, nor from the south. But God is the Judge; he putteth down one, and\nsetteth up another.\u201d(434) Since God cannot divest himself of the office of\na judge, hence he reasons, that it is from the secret counsel of God, that\nsome rise to promotion, and others remain in contempt.\n\nVII. Moreover, particular events are in general proofs of the special\nprovidence of God. God raised in the desert a south wind, to convey to the\npeople a large flock of birds.(435) When he would have Jonah thrown into\nthe sea, he sent forth a wind to raise a tempest.(436) It will be said by\nthem who suppose God not to hold the helm of the world, that this was a\ndeviation from the common course of things. But the conclusion which I\ndeduce from it is, that no wind ever rises or blows but by the special\ncommand of God. For otherwise it would not be true that he makes the winds\nhis messengers, and a flame of fire his ministers, that he makes the\nclouds his chariot, and rides on the wings of the wind,(437) unless he\ndirected at his pleasure the course both of the clouds and of the winds,\nand displayed in them the singular presence of his power. Thus also we are\nelsewhere taught, that, whenever the sea is blown into a tempest by the\nwinds, those commotions prove the special presence of God. \u201cHe commandeth\nand raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves\u201d of the sea. \u201cThen\nhe maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still;\u201d(438) as\nin another place he proclaims, that he scourged the people with parching\nwinds.(439) Thus, whilst men are naturally endued with a power of\ngeneration, yet God will have it acknowledged as the effect of his special\nfavour, that he leaves some without any posterity, and bestows children on\nothers; for \u201cthe fruit of the womb is his reward.\u201d(440) Therefore Jacob\nsaid to his wife, \u201cAm I in God\u2019s stead, who hath withheld from thee the\nfruit of the womb?\u201d(441) But to conclude; there is nothing more common in\nnature, than for us to be nourished with bread. But the Spirit declares,\nnot only that the produce of the earth is the special gift of God, but\nthat men do not live by bread alone;(442) because they are supported not\nby the abundance of their food, but by the secret benediction of God; as,\non the contrary, he threatens that he will break \u201cthe stay of bread.\u201d(443)\nNor, indeed, could we otherwise seriously offer a prayer for daily bread,\nif God did not supply us with food from his fatherly hand. The Prophet,\ntherefore, to convince the faithful that in feeding them God acts the part\nof an excellent father of a family, informs us, that he \u201cgiveth food to\nall flesh.\u201d(444) Lastly, when we hear, on the one hand, that \u201cthe eyes of\nthe Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry,\u201d\nand, on the other, that \u201cthe face of the Lord is against them that do\nevil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth,\u201d(445) we may be\nassured that all creatures, above and below, are ready for his service,\nthat he may apply them to any use that he pleases. Hence we conclude, not\nonly that there is a general providence of God over the creatures, to\ncontinue the order of nature, but that, by his wonderful counsel, they are\nall directed to some specific and proper end.\n\nVIII. Those who wish to bring an odium on this doctrine, calumniate it as\nthe same with the opinion of the Stoics concerning fate, with which\nAugustine also was formerly reproached. Though we are averse to all\ncontentions about words, yet we admit not the term _fate_; both because it\nis of that novel and profane kind which Paul teaches us to avoid, and\nbecause they endeavour to load the truth of God with the odium attached to\nit. But that dogma is falsely and maliciously charged upon us. For we do\nnot, with the Stoics, imagine a necessity arising from a perpetual\nconcatenation and intricate series of causes, contained in nature; but we\nmake God the Arbiter and Governor of all things, who, in his own wisdom,\nhas, from the remotest eternity, decreed what he would do, and now, by his\nown power, executes what he has decreed. Whence we assert, that not only\nthe heaven and the earth, and inanimate creatures, but also the\ndeliberations and volitions of men, are so governed by his providence, as\nto be directed to the end appointed by it. What then? you will say; does\nnothing happen fortuitously or contingently? I answer, that it was truly\nobserved by Basil the Great, that _fortune_ and _chance_ are words of the\nheathen, with the signification of which the minds of the pious ought not\nto be occupied. For if all success be the benediction of God, and calamity\nand adversity his malediction, there is no room left in human affairs for\nfortune or chance. And we should attend to this declaration of Augustine:\n\u201cI am not pleased with myself,\u201d says he, \u201cfor having, in my treatises\nagainst the Academics, so frequently mentioned _fortune_, although I have\nnot intended by that word any goddess, but a fortuitous occurrence of\nexternal things, either good or evil. Hence also such words, the use of\nwhich no religion prohibits, as _perhaps_, _perchance_, _peradventure_,\nwhich, nevertheless, must be entirely referred to the Divine providence.\nAnd on this I have not been silent, remarking that perhaps what is\ncommonly termed _fortune_ is regulated by a secret order, and that what we\ncall _chance_ is only that, with the reason and cause of which we are not\nacquainted. Thus, indeed, I have expressed myself; but I repent of having\nmentioned _fortune_ in this manner, since I see that men are habituated to\na very sinful custom: when they ought to say, \u2018This was the will of God,\u2019\nthey say, \u2018This was the will of Fortune.\u2019 \u201d Finally, he every where\nmaintains, that if any thing be left to fortune, the world revolves at\nrandom. And though he elsewhere decides, that all things are conducted\npartly by the free will of man, partly by the providence of God, yet he\njust after shows that men are subject to it and governed by it, assuming\nas a principle that nothing could be more absurd, than for any thing to\nhappen independently of the ordination of God; because it would happen at\nrandom. By this reasoning he excludes also any contingence dependent on\nthe human will; and immediately after more expressly asserts that we ought\nnot to inquire for any cause of the will of God. But in what sense\n_permission_ ought to be understood, whenever it is mentioned by him, will\nappear from one passage; where he proves that the will of God is the\nsupreme and first cause of all things, because nothing happens but by his\ncommand or permission. He certainly does not suppose God to remain an idle\nspectator, determining to permit any thing; there is an intervention of\nactual volition, if I may be allowed the expression, which otherwise could\nnever be considered as a cause.\n\nIX. Yet, since the dulness of our minds is very much below the sublimity\nof the Divine providence, let us endeavour to assist them by a\ndistinction. I say, then, that, notwithstanding the ordination of all\nthings by the certain purpose and direction of God, yet to us they are\nfortuitous: not that we suppose fortune holds any dominion over the world\nand mankind, and whirls about all things at random, for such folly ought\nto be far from the breast of a Christian; but because the order, reason,\nend, and necessity of events are chiefly concealed in the purpose of God,\nand not comprehended by the mind of man, those things are in some measure\nfortuitous, which must certainly happen according to the Divine will. For\nthey present no other appearance, whether they are considered in their own\nnature, or are estimated according to our knowledge and judgment. Let us\nsuppose, for example, that a merchant, having entered a wood in the\ncompany of honest men, imprudently wanders from his companions, and,\npursuing a wrong course, falls into the hands of robbers, and is murdered.\nHis death was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him. For it is\nsaid, not that he has foreseen to what limits the life of every man would\nextend, but that he \u201chath appointed bounds which he cannot pass.\u201d(446)\nYet, as far as our minds are capable of comprehending, all these\ncircumstances appear fortuitous. What opinion shall a Christian form on\nthis case? He will consider all the circumstances of such a death as in\ntheir nature fortuitous; yet he will not doubt that the providence of God\npresided, and directed fortune to that end. The same reasoning will apply\nto future contingencies. All future things being uncertain to us, we hold\nthem in suspense, as though they might happen either one way or another.\nYet this remains a fixed principle in our hearts, that there will be no\nevent which God has not ordained. In this sense the word _chance_ is\nfrequently repeated in the book of Ecclesiastes; because, on the first\nview, men penetrate not to the first cause, which lies deeply concealed.\nAnd yet the doctrine of the Scripture respecting the secret providence of\nGod, has never been so far obliterated from the hearts of men, but that\nsome sparks of it always shone in the darkness. Thus the Philistine\nsorcerers, though they fluctuated in uncertainty, ascribed adverse\naccidents partly to God, partly to fortune. \u201cIf the ark,\u201d say they, \u201cgoeth\nup by that way, we shall know that God hath done us this great evil; but\nif not, it was a chance that happened to us.\u201d(447) They betrayed great\nfolly, indeed, after having been deceived by divination, to have recourse\nto fortune; yet at the same time, we see them restrained, so that they\ncannot dare to suppose the affliction which had befallen them was\nfortuitous. But how God, by the reins of his providence, directs all\nevents according to his own pleasure, will appear by an eminent example.\nAt the very same instant of time when David had been overtaken in the\nwilderness of Maon, behold, the Philistines made an irruption into the\nland, and Saul was compelled to depart. If God, consulting the safety of\nhis servant, laid this impediment in the way of Saul, then, surely, though\nthe Philistines might have taken up arms suddenly, and contrary to human\nexpectation, yet we will not say that this happened by chance; but what to\nus seems a contingency, faith will acknowledge to have been a secret\nimpulse of God. It is not always, indeed, that there appears a similar\nreason; but it should be considered as indubitably certain, that all the\nrevolutions visible in the world proceed from the secret exertion of the\nDivine power. What God decrees, must necessarily come to pass; yet it is\nnot by absolute or natural necessity. We find a familiar example in\nrespect to the bones of Christ. Since he possessed a body like ours, no\nreasonable man will deny that his bones were capable of being broken; yet\nthat they should be broken was impossible. Hence, again, we perceive that\nthe distinctions of relative and absolute necessity, as well as necessity\nof consequent and of consequence, were not without reason invented in the\nschools; since God made the bones of his Son capable of being broken,\nwhich, however, he had exempted from being actually broken, and thus\nprevented, by the necessity of his purpose, what might naturally have come\nto pass.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XVII. The Proper Application Of This Doctrine To Render It Useful\nTo Us.\n\n\nAs the minds of men are prone to vain subtleties, there is the greatest\ndanger that those who know not the right use of this doctrine will\nembarrass themselves with intricate perplexities. It will therefore be\nnecessary to touch in a brief manner on the end and design of the\nScripture doctrine of the Divine ordination of all things. And here let it\nbe remarked, in the first place, that the providence of God is to be\nconsidered as well in regard to futurity, as in reference to that which is\npast; secondly, that it governs all things in such a manner as to operate\nsometimes by the intervention of means, sometimes without means, and\nsometimes in opposition to all means; lastly, that it tends to show the\ncare of God for the whole human race, and especially his vigilance in the\ngovernment of the Church, which he favours with more particular attention.\nIt must also be observed, that, although the paternal favour and\nbeneficence of God, or the severity of his justice, is frequently\nconspicuous in the whole course of his providence, yet sometimes the\ncauses of events are concealed, so that a suspicion intrudes itself, that\nthe revolutions of human affairs are conducted by the blind impetuosity of\nfortune; or the flesh solicits us to murmur, as though God amused himself\nwith tossing men about like tennis\u2010balls. It is true, indeed, if we were\nready to learn with quiet and sober minds, that the final issue\nsufficiently proves the counsels of God to be directed by the best of\nreasons; that he designs either to teach his people the exercise of\npatience, or to correct their corrupt affections and subdue the\nlicentiousness of their appetites, or to constrain them to the practice of\nself\u2010denial, or to arouse them from their indolence; and, on the other\nhand, to abase the proud, to disappoint the cunning of the wicked, and to\nconfound their machinations. Yet, however the causes may be concealed from\nus, or escape our observation, we must admit it as a certain truth, that\nthey are hidden with him; and must therefore exclaim with David, \u201cMany, O\nLord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy\nthoughts which are to us\u2010ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto\nthee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be\nnumbered.\u201d(448) For, though our miseries ought always to remind us of our\nsins, that the punishment itself may urge us to repentance, yet we see\nthat Christ ascribes more sovereignty to the secret purpose of the Father\nin afflicting men, than to require him to punish every individual\naccording to his demerits. For concerning him who was born blind, he says,\n\u201cNeither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God\nshould be made manifest in him.\u201d(449) For here sense murmurs, when\ncalamity precedes the very birth, as though it were a detraction from the\nDivine clemency thus to afflict the innocent. But Christ declares that the\nglory of his Father is manifested in this instance, provided our eyes are\nclear to behold it. But we must proceed with modesty, cautious that we\ncall not God to an account at our tribunal; but that we entertain such\nreverence for his secret judgments, as to esteem his will the most\nrighteous cause of every thing that he does. When thick clouds obscure the\nheavens, and a violent tempest arises, because a gloomy mist is before our\neyes, and thunder strikes our ears, and terror stupefies all our\nfaculties, all things seem to us to be blended in confusion; yet during\nthe whole time the heavens remain in the same quiet serenity. So it must\nbe concluded, that while the turbulent state of the world deprives us of\nour judgment, God, by the pure light of his own righteousness and wisdom,\nregulates all those commotions in the most exact order, and directs them\nto their proper end. And certainly the madness of many in this respect is\nmonstrous, who dare to arraign the works of God, to scrutinize his secret\ncounsels, and even to pass a precipitate sentence on things unknown, with\ngreater freedom than on the actions of mortal men. For what is more\npreposterous than towards our equals to observe such modesty, as rather to\nsuspend our judgment than to incur the imputation of temerity, but\nimpudently to insult the mysterious judgments of God, which we ought to\nhold in admiration and reverence?\n\nII. None, therefore, will attain just and profitable views of the\nprovidence of God, but he who considers that he has to do with his Maker\nand the Creator of the world, and submits himself to fear and reverence\nwith all becoming humility. Hence it happens that so many worthless\ncharacters in the present day virulently oppose this doctrine, because\nthey will admit nothing to be lawful for God, but what agrees with the\ndictates of their own reason. They revile us with the utmost possible\nimpudence, because, not content with the precepts of the law, which\ncomprehend the will of God, we say that the world is governed also by his\nsecret counsels; as though, indeed, what we assert were only an invention\nof our own brain, and the Holy Spirit did not every where plainly announce\nthe same, and repeat it in innumerable forms of expression. But as they\nare restrained by some degree of shame from daring to discharge their\nblasphemies against heaven, in order to indulge their extravagance with\ngreater freedom, they pretend that they are contending with us. But unless\nthey admit, that whatever comes to pass in the world is governed by the\nincomprehensible counsel of God, let them answer, to what purpose is it\nsaid in the Scripture that his \u201cjudgments are a great deep\u201d?(450) For\nsince Moses proclaims, that the will of God is not to be sought far off,\nin the clouds or in the deep,(451) because it is familiarly explained in\nthe law, it follows that there is another secret will, which is compared\nto a profound abyss; concerning which Paul also says, \u201cO the depth of the\nriches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his\njudgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of\nthe Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?\u201d(452) It is true, that the law\nand the Gospel contain mysteries which far transcend our capacities; but\nsince God illuminates the minds of his people with the spirit of\nunderstanding, to apprehend these mysteries which he has condescended to\nreveal in his word, there we have now no abyss, but a way in which we may\nsafely walk, and a lamp for the direction of our feet, the light of life,\nand the school of certain and evident truth. But his admirable method of\ngoverning the world is justly called a \u201cgreat deep,\u201d because, while it is\nconcealed from our view, it ought to be the object of our profound\nadoration. Moses has beautifully expressed both in a few words. \u201cThe\nsecret things,\u201d says he, \u201cbelong unto the Lord our God; but those things\nwhich are revealed belong unto us and to our children.\u201d(453) We see how he\nenjoins us, not only to devote our attention to meditations on the law of\nGod, but to look up with reverence to his mysterious providence. This\nsublime doctrine is declared in the book of Job, for the purpose of\nhumbling our minds. For the author concludes a general view of the machine\nof the world, and a magnificent dissertation on the works of God, in these\nwords: \u201cLo, these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion is heard\nof him!\u201d(454) For which reason, in another place he distinguishes between\nthe wisdom which resides in God, and the method of attaining wisdom which\nhe has prescribed to men. For, after discoursing concerning the secrets of\nnature, he says, that wisdom is known only to God, and \u201cis hid from the\neyes of all living.\u201d But a little after he subjoins, that it is published\nin order to be investigated, because it is said to men, \u201cBehold the fear\nof the Lord, that is wisdom.\u201d(455) To the same purpose is this observation\nof Augustine: \u201cBecause we know not all that God does concerning us by an\nexcellent order we act according to the law in a good will only, but in\nother respects are actuated according to it; because his providence is an\nimmutable law.\u201d Therefore, since God claims a power unknown to us of\ngoverning the world, let this be to us the law of sobriety and modesty, to\nacquiesce in his supreme dominion, to account his will the only rule of\nrighteousness, and most righteous cause of all things. Not, indeed, that\nabsolute will which is the subject of the declamation of sophists,\nimpiously and profanely separating his justice from his power, but that\nprovidence which governs all things, from which originates nothing but\nwhat is right, although the reasons of it may be concealed from us.\n\nIII. Those who have learned this modesty, will neither murmur against God\non account of past adversities, nor charge him with the guilt of their\ncrimes, like Agamemnon, in Homer, who says, \u201cThe blame belongs not to me,\nbut to Jupiter and Fate.\u201d Nor will they, as if hurried away by the Fates,\nunder the influence of despair, put an end to their own lives, like the\nyoung man whom Plautus introduces as saying, \u201cThe condition of our affairs\nis inconstant; men are governed by the caprice of the Fates; I will betake\nmyself to a precipice, and there destroy my life and every thing at once.\u201d\nNor will they excuse their flagitious actions by ascribing them to God,\nafter the example of another young man introduced by the same poet, who\nsays, \u201cGod was the cause: I believe it was the Divine will. For had it not\nbeen so, I know it would not have happened.\u201d But they will rather search\nthe Scripture, to learn what is pleasing to God, that by the guidance of\nthe Spirit they may strive to attain it; and at the same time, being\nprepared to follow God whithersoever he calls them, they will exhibit\nproofs in their conduct that nothing is more useful than a knowledge of\nthis doctrine. Some profane men foolishly raise such a tumult with their\nabsurdities, as almost, according to a common expression, to confound\nheaven and earth together. They argue in this manner: If God has fixed the\nmoment of our death, we cannot avoid it; therefore all caution against it\nwill be but lost labour. One man dares not venture himself in a way which\nhe hears is dangerous, lest he should be assassinated by robbers; another\nsends for physicians, and wearies himself with medicines, to preserve his\nlife; another abstains from the grosser kinds of food, lest he should\ninjure his valetudinary constitution; another dreads to inhabit a ruinous\nhouse; and men in general exert all their faculties in devising and\nexecuting methods by which they may attain the object of their desires.\nNow, either all these things are vain remedies employed to correct the\nwill of God, or life and death, health and disease, peace and war, and\nother things which, according to their desires or aversions, men\nindustriously study to obtain or to avoid, are not determined by his\ncertain decree. Moreover they conclude, that the prayers of the faithful\nare not only superfluous, but perverse, which contain petitions that the\nLord will provide for those things which he has already decreed from\neternity. In short, they supersede all deliberations respecting futurity,\nas opposed to the providence of God, who, without consulting men, has\ndecreed whatever he pleased. And what has already happened they impute to\nthe Divine providence in such a manner as to overlook the person, who is\nknown to have committed any particular act. Has an assassin murdered a\nworthy citizen? they say he has executed the counsel of God. Has any one\nbeen guilty of theft or fornication? because he has done what was foreseen\nand ordained by the Lord, he is the minister of his providence. Has a son,\nneglecting all remedies, carelessly waited the death of his father? it was\nimpossible for him to resist God, who had decreed this event from\neternity. Thus by these persons all crimes are denominated virtues,\nbecause they are subservient to the ordination of God.\n\nIV. But in reference to future things, Solomon easily reconciles the\ndeliberations of men with the providence of God. For as he ridicules the\nfolly of those who presumptuously undertake any thing without the Lord, as\nthough they were not subject to his government, so in another place he\nsays, \u201cA man\u2019s heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his\nsteps;\u201d(456) signifying that the eternal decrees of God form no impediment\nto our providing for ourselves, and disposing all our concerns in\nsubservience to his will. The reason of this is manifest. For he who has\nfixed the limits of our life, has also intrusted us with the care of it;\nhas furnished us with means and supplies for its preservation; has also\nmade us provident of dangers; and, that they may not oppress us unawares,\nhas furnished us with cautions and remedies. Now, it is evident what is\nour duty. If God has committed to us the preservation of our life, we\nshould preserve it; if he offers supplies, we should use them; if he\nforewarns us of dangers, we should not rashly run into them; if he\nfurnishes remedies, we ought not to neglect them. But it will be objected,\nno danger can hurt, unless it has been ordained that it shall hurt us, and\nthen no remedies can avert it. But what if dangers are therefore not\nfatal, because God has assigned you remedies to repulse and overcome them?\nExamine whether your reasoning agrees with the order of the Divine\nprovidence. You conclude that it is unnecessary to guard against danger,\nbecause, if it be not fatal, we shall escape it without caution; but, on\nthe contrary, the Lord enjoins you to use caution, because he intends it\nnot to be fatal to you. These madmen overlook what is obvious to every\nobserver\u2014that the arts of deliberation and caution in men proceed from the\ninspiration of God, and that they subserve the designs of his providence\nin the preservation of their own lives; as, on the contrary, by neglect\nand slothfulness, they procure to themselves the evils which he has\nappointed for them. For how does it happen, that a prudent man, consulting\nhis own welfare, averts from himself impending evils, and a fool is ruined\nby his inconsiderate temerity, unless folly and prudence are in both cases\ninstruments of the Divine dispensation? Therefore it has pleased God to\nconceal from us all future events, that we may meet them as doubtful\ncontingencies, and not cease to oppose to them the remedies with which we\nare provided, till they shall have been surmounted, or shall have overcome\nall our diligence. Therefore I have before suggested, that the providence\nof God ought not always to be contemplated abstractedly by itself, but in\nconnection with the means which he employs.\n\nV. The same persons inconsiderately and erroneously ascribe all past\nevents to the absolute providence of God. For since all things which come\nto pass are dependent upon it, therefore, say they, neither thefts, nor\nadulteries, nor homicides, are perpetrated without the intervention of the\nDivine will. Why, therefore, they ask, shall a thief be punished for\nhaving pillaged him whom it has pleased the Lord to chastise with poverty?\nWhy shall a homicide be punished for having slain him whose life the Lord\nhad terminated? If all such characters are subservient to the Divine will,\nwhy shall they be punished? But I deny that they serve the will of God.\nFor we cannot say, that he who is influenced by a wicked heart, acts in\nobedience to the commands of God, while he is only gratifying his own\nmalignant passions. That man obeys God, who, being instructed in his will,\nhastens whither God calls him. Where can we learn his will, but in his\nword? Therefore in our actions we ought to regard the will of God, which\nis declared in his word. God only requires of us conformity to his\nprecepts. If we do any thing contrary to them, it is not obedience, but\ncontumacy and transgression. But it is said, if he would not permit it, we\nshould not do it. This I grant. But do we perform evil actions with the\ndesign of pleasing him? He gives us no such command. We precipitate\nourselves into them, not considering what is his will, but inflamed with\nthe violence of our passions, so that we deliberately strive to oppose\nhim. In this manner even by criminal actions we subserve his righteous\nordination; because, in the infinite greatness of his wisdom, he well\nknows how to use evil instruments for the accomplishment of good purposes.\nNow, observe the absurdity of their reasoning: they wish the authors of\ncrimes to escape with impunity, because crimes are not perpetrated but by\nthe ordination of God. I admit more than this; even that thieves, and\nhomicides, and other malefactors, are instruments of Divine providence,\nwhom the Lord uses for the execution of the judgments which he has\nappointed. But I deny that this ought to afford any excuse for their\ncrimes. For will they either implicate God in the same iniquity with\nthemselves, or cover their depravity with his righteousness? They can do\nneither. They are prevented from exculpating themselves, by the reproofs\nof their own consciences; and they can lay no blame upon God, for they\nfind in themselves nothing but evil, and in him only a legitimate use of\ntheir wickedness. But it is alleged that he operates by their means. And\nwhence, I ask, proceeds the fetid smell of a carcass, which has been\nputrefied and disclosed by the heat of the sun? It is visible to all that\nit is excited by the solar rays; yet no person on this account attributes\nto those rays an offensive smell. So, when the matter and guilt of evil\nresides in a bad man, why should God be supposed to contract any\ndefilement, if he uses his service according to his own pleasure? Let us\ndismiss this petulance, therefore, which may rail against the justice of\nGod from a distance, but can never reach that Divine attribute.\n\nVI. But these cavils, or rather extravagancies of frenzy, will easily be\ndispelled by the pious and holy contemplation of providence, which the\nrule of piety dictates to us, so that we may derive from it the greatest\npleasure and advantage. The mind of a Christian, therefore, when it is\ncertainly persuaded that all things happen by the ordination of God, and\nthat there is nothing fortuitously contingent, will always direct its\nviews to him as the supreme cause of all things, and will also consider\ninferior causes in their proper order. He will not doubt that the\nparticular providence of God is watchful for his preservation, never\npermitting any event which it will not overrule for his advantage and\nsafety. But, since he is concerned in the first place with men, and in the\nnext place with the other creatures, he will assure himself, as to both,\nthat the providence of God reigns over all. With respect to men, whether\ngood or evil, he will acknowledge that their deliberations, wills,\nendeavours, and powers, are under his control, so that it is at his option\nto direct them whithersoever he pleases, and to restrain them as often as\nhe pleases. The vigilance of the particular providence of God for the\nsafety of the faithful is attested by numerous and very remarkable\npromises: \u201cCast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee: he\nshall never suffer the righteous to be moved.(457) He that dwelleth in the\nsecret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the\nAlmighty.(458) He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye. We\nhave a strong city: salvation will God appoint for walls and\nbulwarks.(459) Though a woman forget her sucking child, yet will I not\nforget thee.\u201d(460) Moreover, this is the principal scope of the Biblical\nhistories, to teach us that the Lord so sedulously defends the ways of the\nsaints, that they may not even \u201cdash their foot against a stone.\u201d(461)\nTherefore, as we have a little before justly exploded the opinion of those\nwho hold a universal providence of God, which descends not to the care of\nevery creature in particular, so it is principally necessary and useful to\ncontemplate this special care towards ourselves. For this reason, Christ,\nafter having asserted that not the meanest sparrow falls to the ground\nwithout the will of the Father,(462) immediately makes the following\napplication\u2014that the more we exceed the value of sparrows, the greater\ncare we should consider God as exercising over us; and he carries this to\nsuch an extent, that we may be confident that the hairs of our head are\nnumbered. What more can we desire for ourselves, if not a single hair can\nfall from our head, but according to his will? I speak not exclusively of\nthe human race; but since God has chosen the Church for his habitation,\nthere is no doubt but he particularly displays his paternal care in the\ngovernment of it.\n\nVII. The servant of God, encouraged by these promises and examples, will\nadd the testimonies, which inform us that all men are subject to his\npower, either to conciliate their minds in our favour, or to restrain\ntheir malice from being injurious. For it is the Lord who gives us favour,\nnot only with our friends, but also in the eyes of the Egyptians;(463) and\nhe knows how to subdue, by various methods, the fury of our enemies.\nSometimes he deprives them of understanding, so that they can form no\nsober or prudent plans; as he sent Satan to fill the mouths of all the\nprophets with falsehood, in order to deceive Ahab:(464) he infatuated\nRehoboam by the counsel of the young men, that through his own folly he\nmight be spoiled of his kingdom.(465) Sometimes, when he grants them\nunderstanding, he so terrifies and dispirits them, that they can neither\ndetermine nor undertake what they have conceived. Sometimes, also, when he\nhas permitted them to attempt what their rage and passion prompted, he\nopportunely breaks their impetuosity, not suffering them to proceed to the\naccomplishment of their designs. Thus he prematurely defeated the counsel\nof Ahithophel, which would have been fatal to David.(466) Thus, also, he\ntakes care to govern all creatures for the benefit and safety of his\npeople, even the devil himself, who, we see, dared not to attempt any\nthing against Job, without his permission and command.(467) The necessary\nconsequences of this knowledge are, gratitude in prosperity, patience in\nadversity, and a wonderful security respecting the future. Every\nprosperous and pleasing event, therefore, the pious man will ascribe\nentirely to God, whether his beneficence be received through the ministry\nof men, or by the assistance of inanimate creatures. For this will be the\nreflection of his mind: \u201cIt is certainly the Lord that has inclined their\nhearts to favour me, that has united them to me to be the instruments of\nhis benignity towards me.\u201d In an abundance of the fruits of the earth, he\nwill consider, that it is the Lord who regards the heaven, that the heaven\nmay regard the earth, that the earth, also, may regard its own\nproductions: in other things he will not doubt that it is the Divine\nbenediction alone which is the cause of all prosperity; nor will he bear\nto be ungrateful after so many admonitions.\n\nVIII. If any adversity befall him, in this case, also, he will immediately\nlift up his heart to God, whose hand is most capable of impressing us with\npatience and placid moderation of mind. If Joseph had dwelt on a review of\nthe perfidy of his brethren, he never could have recovered his fraternal\naffection for them. But as he turned his mind to the Lord, he forgot their\ninjuries, and was so inclined to mildness and clemency, as even\nvoluntarily to administer consolation to them, saying, \u201cIt was not you\nthat sent me hither, but God did send me before you to save your lives. Ye\nthought evil against me; but God meant it unto good.\u201d(468) If Job had\nregarded the Chaldeans, by whom he was molested, he had been inflamed to\nrevenge; but recognizing the event at the same time as the work of the\nLord, he consoled himself with this very beautiful observation: \u201cThe Lord\ngave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.\u201d(469)\nThus David, when assailed by Shimei with reproachful language and with\nstones, if he had confined his views to man, would have animated his\nsoldiers to retaliate the injury; but understanding that it was not done\nwithout the instigation of the Lord, he rather appeases them: \u201cLet him\ncurse,\u201d says he, \u201cbecause the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David.\u201d(470)\nIn another place he imposes the same restraint on the intemperance of his\ngrief: \u201cI was dumb,\u201d says he, \u201cI opened not my mouth; because thou didst\nit.\u201d(471) If there be no more efficacious remedy for anger and impatience,\nsurely that man has made no small proficiency, who has learned in this\ncase to meditate on the Divine providence, that he may be able at all\ntimes to recall his mind to this consideration: \u201cIt is the will of the\nLord, therefore it must be endured; not only because resistance is\nunlawful and vain, but because he wills nothing but what is both just and\nexpedient.\u201d The conclusion of the whole is this\u2014that, when we suffer\ninjuries from men, forgetting their malice, which would only exasperate\nour grief and instigate our minds to revenge, we should remember to ascend\nto God, and learn to account it a certain truth, that whatever our enemies\nhave criminally committed against us, has been permitted and directed by\nhis righteous dispensation. To restrain us from retaliating injuries, Paul\nprudently admonishes us that our contention is not with flesh and blood,\nbut with a spiritual enemy, the devil,(472) in order that we may prepare\nourselves for the contest. But this admonition is the most useful in\nappeasing all the sallies of resentment, that God arms for the conflict\nboth the devil and all wicked men, and sits himself as the arbiter of the\ncombat, to exercise our patience. But if the calamities and miseries which\noppress us happen without the interposition of men, let us recollect the\ndoctrine of the law, that every prosperous event proceeds from the\nbenediction of God, but that all adverse ones are his maledictions;(473)\nand let us tremble at that awful denunciation, \u201cIf ye will walk contrary\nunto me, then will I also walk contrary unto you;\u201d(474) language which\nreproves our stupidity, while, according to the common apprehensions of\nthe flesh, esteeming every event, both prosperous and adverse, to be\nfortuitous, we are neither animated to the worship of God by his benefits,\nnor stimulated to repentance by his corrections. This is the reason of the\nsharp expostulations of Jeremiah and of Amos,(475) because the Jews\nsupposed that both good and evil events came to pass without any\nappointment of God. To the same purpose is this passage of Isaiah: \u201cI form\nthe light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord\ndo all these things.\u201d(476)\n\nIX. Yet at the same time a pious man will not overlook inferior causes.\nNor, because he accounts those from whom he has received any benefit, the\nministers of the Divine goodness, will he therefore pass them by\nunnoticed, as though they deserved no thanks for their kindness; but will\nfeel, and readily acknowledge, his obligation to them, and study to return\nit as ability and opportunity may permit. Finally, he will reverence and\npraise God as the principal Author of benefits received, but will honour\nmen as his ministers; and will understand, what, indeed, is the fact, that\nthe will of God has laid him under obligations to those persons by whose\nmeans the Lord has been pleased to communicate his benefits. If he suffer\nany loss either through negligence or through imprudence, he will conclude\nthat it happened according to the Divine will, but will also impute the\nblame of it to himself. If any one be removed by disease, whom, while it\nwas his duty to take care of him, he has treated with neglect,\u2014though he\ncannot be ignorant that that person had reached those limits which it was\nimpossible for him to pass, yet he will not make this a plea to extenuate\nhis guilt; but, because he has not faithfully performed his duty towards\nhim, will consider him as having perished through his criminal negligence.\nMuch less, when fraud and preconceived malice appear in the perpetration\neither of murder or of theft, will he excuse those enormities under the\npretext of the Divine providence: in the same crime he will distinctly\ncontemplate the righteousness of God and the iniquity of man, as they\nrespectively discover themselves. But it is principally in regard to\nthings future that he will direct his attention to inferior causes of this\nkind. For he will rank it among the blessings of the Lord, not to be\ndestitute of human aids which he may use for his own safety; he will\nneither be remiss, therefore, in taking the advice, nor negligent in\nimploring the help, of those whom he perceives to be capable of affording\nhim assistance; but, considering all the creatures, that can in any\nrespect be serviceable to him, as so many gifts from the Lord, he will use\nthem as the legitimate instruments of the Divine providence. And as he is\nuncertain respecting the issue of his undertakings, except that he knows\nthat the Lord will in all things provide for his good, he studiously aims\nat what, according to the best judgment he can form, will be for his\nadvantage. Nor, in conducting his deliberations, will he be carried away\nby his own opinion, but will recommend and resign himself to the wisdom of\nGod, that he may be directed by its guidance to the right end. But he will\nnot place his confidence in external helps to such a degree as, if\npossessed of them, securely to rely on them, or, if destitute of them, to\ntremble with despair. For his mind will always be fixed solely on the\nDivine providence, nor will he suffer himself to be seduced from a steady\ncontemplation of it, by any consideration of present things. Thus Joab,\nthough he acknowledges the event of battle to depend on the will and the\npower of God, yet surrenders not himself to inactivity, but sedulously\nexecutes all the duties of his office, and leaves the event to the Divine\ndecision. \u201cLet us play the men,\u201d says he, \u201cfor our people, and for the\ncities of our God; and the Lord do that which seemeth him good.\u201d(477) This\nknowledge will divest us of temerity and false confidence, and excite us\nto continual invocations of God; it will also support our minds with a\ngood hope, that without hesitation we may securely and magnanimously\ndespise all the dangers which surround us.\n\nX. Herein is discovered the inestimable felicity of the pious mind. Human\nlife is beset by innumerable evils, and threatened with a thousand deaths.\nNot to go beyond ourselves,\u2014since our body is the receptacle of a thousand\ndiseases, and even contains and fosters the causes of diseases, a man must\nunavoidably carry about with him destruction in unnumbered forms, and\nprotract a life which is, as it were, involved in death. For what else can\nyou say of it, when neither cold nor heat in any considerable degree can\nbe endured without danger? Now, whithersoever you turn, all the objects\naround you are not only unworthy of your confidence, but almost openly\nmenace you, and seem to threaten immediate death. Embark in a ship; there\nis but a single step between you and death. Mount a horse; the slipping of\none foot endangers your life. Walk through the streets of a city; you are\nliable to as many dangers as there are tiles on the roofs. If there be a\nsharp weapon in your hand, or that of your friend, the mischief is\nmanifest. All the ferocious animals you see are armed for your\ndestruction. If you endeavour to shut yourself in a garden surrounded with\na good fence, and exhibiting nothing but what is delightful, even there\nsometimes lurks a serpent. Your house, perpetually liable to fire, menaces\nyou by day with poverty, and by night with falling on your head. Your\nland, exposed to hail, frost, drought, and various tempests, threatens you\nwith sterility, and with its attendant, famine. I omit poison, treachery,\nrobbery, and open violence, which partly beset us at home, and partly\npursue us abroad. Amidst these difficulties, must not man be most\nmiserable, who is half dead while he lives, and is dispirited and alarmed\nas though he had a sword perpetually applied to his neck? You will say\nthat these things happen seldom, or certainly not always, nor to every\nman, but never all at once. I grant it; but as we are admonished by the\nexamples of others, that it is possible for them to happen also to us, and\nthat we have no more claim to exemption from them than others, we must\nunavoidably dread them as events that we may expect. What can you imagine\nmore calamitous than such a dread? Besides, it is an insult to God to say\nthat he has exposed man, the noblest of his creatures, to the blindness\nand temerity of fortune. But here I intend to speak only of the misery\nwhich man must feel, if he be subject to the dominion of fortune.\n\nXI. On the contrary, when this light of Divine providence has once shined\non a pious man, he is relieved and delivered not only from the extreme\nanxiety and dread with which he was previously oppressed, but also from\nall care. For, as he justly dreads fortune, so he ventures securely to\ncommit himself to God. This, I say, is his consolation, to apprehend that\nhis heavenly Father restrains all things by his power, governs all things\nby his will, and regulates all things by his wisdom, in such a manner,\nthat nothing can happen but by his appointment; moreover, that God has\ntaken him under his protection, and committed him to the care of angels,\nso that he can sustain no injury from water, or fire, or sword, any\nfurther than the Divine Governor may be pleased to permit. For thus sings\nthe Psalmist: \u201cSurely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler,\nand from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers,\nand under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and\nbuckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the\narrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness;\nnor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.\u201d(478) Hence also proceeds\nthat confidence of glorying in the saints: \u201cThe Lord is on my side; I will\nnot fear what man can do unto me. The Lord is the strength of my life; of\nwhom shall I be afraid? Though a host should encamp against me\u2014though I\nwalk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.\u201d(479)\nHow is it that their security remains unshaken, while the world appears to\nbe revolving at random, but because they know that the Lord is universally\noperative, and confide in his operations as beneficial to them? Now, when\ntheir safety is attacked, either by the devil or by wicked men, if they\nwere not supported by the recollection and contemplation of providence,\nthey must necessarily and immediately faint. But when they recollect, that\nthe devil and the whole army of the wicked are in every respect so\nrestrained by the Divine power, that they can neither conceive of any\nhostility against us, nor, after having conceived it, form a plan for its\naccomplishment, nor even move a finger towards the execution of such plan,\nany further than he has permitted, and even commanded them; and that they\nare not only bound by his chains, but also compelled to do him\nservice,\u2014they have an abundant source of consolation. For as it belongs to\nthe Lord to arm their fury, and to direct it to whatever objects he\npleases, so it also belongs to him to fix its limits, that they may not\nenjoy an unbounded triumph according to their own wills. Established in\nthis persuasion, Paul determined his journey in one place by the\npermission of God, which in another he had declared was prevented by\nSatan.(480) If he had only said that Satan was the obstacle, he would have\nappeared to attribute too much power to him, as though he were able to\nsubvert the purposes of God; but when he states God to be the arbiter, on\nwhose permission all journeys depend, he at the same time shows, that\nSatan, with all his machinations, can effect nothing but by his\npermission. For the same reason, David, on account of the various and\nconstant vicissitudes of life, betakes himself to this asylum: \u201cMy times\nare in thy hand.\u201d(481) He might have mentioned either the course of life,\nor _time_, in the singular number; but by the word _times_ he intended to\nexpress, that, however unstable the condition of men may be, all the\nvicissitudes which take place are under the government of God. For which\nreason Rezin and the king of Israel, when, after the junction of their\nforces for the destruction of Judah, they resembled firebrands kindled to\nconsume and ruin the land, are called by the Prophet \u201csmoking\nfirebrands,\u201d(482) which can do nothing but emit a little smoke. Thus\nPharaoh, when his riches, his strength, and the multitude of his forces,\nrendered him formidable to all, is himself compared to a sea\u2010monster, and\nhis forces to fishes.(483) Therefore God denounces that he will take both\nthe captain and his army with his hook, and draw them whither he pleases.\nFinally, to dwell no longer on this part of the subject, you will easily\nperceive, on examination, that ignorance of providence is the greatest of\nmiseries, but that the knowledge of it is attended with the highest\nfelicity.\n\nXII. On the doctrine of Divine providence, as far as it may conduce to the\nsolid instruction and consolation of the faithful, (for to satisfy a vain\ncuriosity is neither possible nor desirable,) enough would now have been\nsaid, were it not for a difficulty arising from a few passages, which\napparently imply, in opposition to what has been stated, that the counsel\nof God is not firm and stable, but liable to change according to the\nsituation of sublunary affairs. In the first place, there are several\ninstances in which repentance is attributed to God; as, that he repented\nof having created man,(484) and of having exalted Saul to the\nkingdom;(485) and that he will repent of the evil which he had determined\nto inflict on his people, as soon as he shall have perceived their\nconversion.(486) In the next place, we read of the abrogation of some of\nhis decrees. By Jonah he declared to the Ninevites,(487) that, after the\nlapse of forty days, Nineveh should be destroyed; but their penitence\nafterwards obtained from him a more merciful sentence. By the mouth of\nIsaiah he denounced death to Hezekiah;(488) which the prayers and tears of\nthat monarch moved him to defer.(489) Hence many persons argue, that God\nhas not fixed the affairs of men by an eternal decree; but that every\nyear, day, and hour, he decrees one thing or another, according to the\nrespective merits of each individual, or to his own ideas of equity and\njustice. With regard to repentance, we must not admit that it can happen\nto God, any more than ignorance, or error, or impotence. For if no man\nknowingly and willingly lays himself under the necessity of repentance, we\ncannot attribute repentance to God, without saying either that he is\nignorant of the future, or that he cannot avoid it, or that he\nprecipitately and inconsiderately adopts a resolution, of which he\nimmediately repents. But that is so far from the meaning of the Holy\nSpirit, that in the very mention of repentance, he denies that it can\nbelong to God, because \u201che is not a man, that he should repent.\u201d(490) And\nit must be remarked, that both these points are so connected in the same\nchapter, that a comparison fully reconciles the apparent inconsistency.\nWhere it is said that God repented of having created Saul king, the change\ndeclared to have taken place is figurative. It is almost immediately\nadded, that \u201cThe strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not\na man, that he should repent;\u201d(491) in which, without any figure, his\nimmutability is plainly asserted. It is certain, therefore, that the\nordination of God in the administration of human affairs, is perpetual,\nand superior to all repentance. And to place his constancy beyond all\ndoubt, even his adversaries have been constrained to attest it. For\nBalaam, notwithstanding his reluctance, was obliged to break out into the\nfollowing exclamation: \u201cGod is not a man, that he should lie; neither the\nson of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?\nor hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?\u201d(492)\n\nXIII. How, then, it will be inquired, is the term _repentance_ to be\nunderstood, when attributed to God? I reply, in the same manner as all the\nother forms of expression, which describe God to us after the manner of\nmen. For, since our infirmity cannot reach his sublimity, the description\nof him which is given to us, in order that we may understand it, must be\nlowered to the level of our capacity. His method of lowering it, is to\nrepresent himself to us, not as he is in himself, but according to our\nperception of him. Though he is free from all perturbation of mind, he\ndeclares that he is angry with sinners.(493) As, therefore, when we hear\nthat God is angry, we ought not to imagine any commotion in him, but\nrather to consider this expression as borrowed from our perception,\nbecause God carries the appearance of one who is very angry, whenever he\nexecutes judgment,\u2014so neither by the term _repentance_ ought we to\nunderstand any thing but a change of actions; because men are accustomed\nto express their dissatisfaction with themselves by changing their\nactions. Since every change among men, therefore, is a correction of that\nwhich displeases them, and correction proceeds from repentance, therefore\nthe term _repentance_ is used to signify that God makes a change in his\nworks. Yet, at the same time, there is no alteration in his counsel or his\nwill, nor any change in his affections; but how sudden soever the\nvariation may appear to the eyes of men, he perpetually and regularly\nprosecutes what he has foreseen, approved, and decreed from eternity.\n\nXIV. Nor does the Sacred History, when it records the remission of the\ndestruction which had just been denounced against the Ninevites, and the\nprolongation of the life of Hezekiah after he had been threatened with\ndeath, prove that there was any abrogation of the Divine decrees. Persons\nwho thus understand it, are deceived in their ideas of the threatenings;\nwhich, though expressed in the form of simple declarations, yet, as the\nevent shows, contain in them a tacit condition. For why did God send Jonah\nto the Ninevites, to predict the ruin of their city? Why did he, by the\nmouth of Isaiah, warn Hezekiah of death? He could have destroyed both them\nand him, without previously announcing their end. He had some other object\nin view, therefore, than to forewarn them of their death, and to give them\na distant prospect of its approach. And that was not to destroy them, but\nto reform them, that they might not be destroyed. Therefore the prediction\nof Jonah, that after forty days Nineveh should fall, was uttered to\nprevent its fall. Hezekiah was deprived of the hope of a longer life, in\norder that he might obtain a prolongation of it in answer to his prayers.\nNow, who does not see, that the Lord, by such denunciations as these,\nintended to arouse to repentance the persons whom he thus alarmed, that\nthey might escape the judgment which their sins had deserved? If this be\nadmitted, the nature of the circumstances leads to the conclusion, that we\nmust understand a tacit condition implied in the simple denunciation. This\nis also confirmed by similar examples. The Lord, reprehending king\nAbimelech for having deprived Abraham of his wife, uses these\nwords:\u2014\u201cBehold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast\ntaken; for she is a man\u2019s wife.\u201d But after Abimelech has excused himself,\nthe Lord speaks in this manner: \u201cRestore the man his wife; for he is a\nprophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live; and if thou\nrestore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that\nare thine.\u201d(494) You see how, by the first declaration, God terrifies his\nmind, to dispose him to make satisfaction; but in the next, he makes an\nexplicit declaration of his will. Since other passages are to be explained\nin a similar manner, you must not infer that there is any abrogation of a\nprior purpose of the Lord, because he may have annulled some former\ndeclarations. For God rather prepares the way for his eternal ordination,\nwhen, by a denunciation of punishment, he calls to repentance those whom\nhe designs to spare, than makes any variation in his will, or even in his\ndeclarations, except that he does not syllabically express what,\nnevertheless, is easily understood. For that assertion of Isaiah must\nremain true: \u201cThe Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it?\nand his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?\u201d(495)\n\n\n\n\nChapter XVIII. God Uses The Agency Of The Impious, And Inclines Their\nMinds To Execute His Judgments, Yet Without The Least Stain Of His Perfect\nPurity.\n\n\nA question of greater difficulty arises from other passages, where God is\nsaid to incline or draw, according to his own pleasure, Satan himself and\nall the reprobate. For the carnal understanding scarcely comprehends how\nhe, acting by their means, contracts no defilement from their criminality,\nand, even in operations common to himself and them, is free from every\nfault, and yet righteously condemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence\nwas invented the distinction between _doing_ and _permitting_; because to\nmany persons this has appeared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satan and\nall the impious are subject to the power and government of God, so that he\ndirects their malice to whatever end he pleases, and uses their crimes for\nthe execution of his judgments. The modesty of those who are alarmed at\nthe appearance of absurdity, might perhaps be excusable, if they did not\nattempt to vindicate the Divine justice from all accusation by a pretence\nutterly destitute of any foundation in truth. They consider it absurd that\na man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and afterwards be\npunished for his blindness. They therefore evade the difficulty, by\nalleging that it happens only by the permission, and not by the will of\nGod; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this\nsubterfuge. That men, however, can effect nothing but by the secret will\nof God, and can deliberate on nothing but what he has previously decreed,\nand determines by his secret direction, is proved by express and\ninnumerable testimonies. What we have before cited from the Psalmist, that\n\u201cGod hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,\u201d(496) undoubtedly pertains to\nall the actions of men. If God be the certain arbiter of war and peace, as\nis there affirmed, and that without any exception, who will venture to\nassert, that he remains ignorant and unconcerned respecting men, while\nthey are actuated by the blind influence of chance? But this subject will\nbe better elucidated by particular examples. From the first chapter of Job\nwe know that Satan presents himself before God to receive his commands, as\nwell as the angels, who yield a spontaneous obedience. It is, indeed, in a\ndifferent manner, and for a different end; yet he cannot attempt any thing\nbut by the Divine will. Although he seems to obtain only a bare permission\nto afflict that holy man, yet, since this sentence is true, \u201cThe Lord\ngave, and the Lord hath taken away,\u201d(497) we conclude that God was the\nauthor of that trial, of which Satan and mischievous robbers and assassins\nwere the immediate agents. Satan endeavours to drive him by desperation\ninto madness. The Sabeans, in a predatory incursion, cruelly and wickedly\nseize upon property not their own. Job acknowledges that he was stripped\nof all his wealth, and reduced to poverty, because such was the will of\nGod. Therefore, whatever is attempted by men, or by Satan himself, God\nstill holds the helm, to direct all their attempts to the execution of his\njudgments. God intends the deception of that perfidious king Ahab; the\ndevil offers his service for that purpose; he is sent with a positive\ncommission to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets.(498) If\nthe blinding and infatuation of Ahab be a Divine judgment, the pretence of\nbare permission disappears. For it would be ridiculous for a judge merely\nto permit, without decreeing what should be done, and commanding his\nofficers to execute it. The Jews designed to destroy Christ; Pilate and\nhis soldiers complied with their outrageous violence; yet the disciples,\nin a solemn prayer, confess that all the impious did nothing but what \u201cthe\nhand and the counsel of God determined before to be done;\u201d(499) agreeably\nto what Peter had already preached, that he was \u201cdelivered by the\ndeterminate counsel and foreknowledge of God,\u201d that he might be \u201ccrucified\nand slain.\u201d(500) As though he had said that God, who saw every thing from\nthe beginning, with a clear knowledge and determined will, appointed what\nthe Jews executed; as he mentions in another place: \u201cThose things which\nGod before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should\nsuffer, he hath so fulfilled.\u201d(501) Absalom, defiling his father\u2019s bed\nwith incest, perpetrated a detestable crime; yet God pronounces that this\nwas his work; for his words are, \u201cThou didst it secretly; but I will do\nthis thing before all Israel, and before the sun.\u201d(502) Whatever cruelty\nthe Chaldeans exercised in Judea, Jeremiah pronounces to be the work of\nGod;(503) for which reason Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God.\nGod frequently proclaims, that the impious are excited to war by his\nhissing, by the sound of his trumpet, by his influence, and by his\ncommand: he calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger, and the staff which\nhe moves with his hand. The destruction of the holy city and the ruin of\nthe temple he calls his own work.(504) David, not murmuring against God,\nbut acknowledging him to be a righteous Judge, confesses the maledictions\nof Shimei to proceed from his command. \u201cThe Lord,\u201d says he, \u201chath said\nunto him, Curse.\u201d(505) It often occurs in the Sacred History, that\nwhatever comes to pass proceeds from the Lord; as the defection of the ten\ntribes,(506) the death of the sons of Eli,(507) and many events of a\nsimilar kind. Those who are but moderately acquainted with the Scriptures\nwill perceive that, for the sake of brevity, out of a great number of\ntestimonies, I have produced only a few; which, nevertheless, abundantly\nevince how nugatory and insipid it is, instead of the providence of God,\nto substitute a bare permission; as though God were sitting in a\nwatchtower, expecting fortuitous events, and so his decisions were\ndependent on the will of men.\n\nII. With respect to his secret influences, the declaration of Solomon\nconcerning the heart of a king, that it is inclined hither or thither\naccording to the Divine will,(508) certainly extends to the whole human\nrace, and is as much as though he had said, that whatever conceptions we\nform in our minds, they are directed by the secret inspiration of God. And\ncertainly, if he did not operate internally on the human mind, there would\nbe no propriety in asserting, that he causes \u201cthe wisdom of the wise to\nperish, and the understanding of the prudent to be hid; that he poureth\ncontempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where\nthere is no way.\u201d(509) And to this alludes, what we frequently read, that\nmen are timorous, as their hearts are possessed with his fear.(510) Thus\nDavid departed from the camp of Saul, without the knowledge of any one;\n\u201cbecause a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them all.\u201d(511) But\nnothing can be desired more explicit than his frequent declarations, that\nhe blinds the minds of men, strikes them with giddiness, inebriates them\nwith the spirit of slumber, fills them with infatuation, and hardens their\nhearts.(512) These passages also many persons refer to permission, as\nthough, in abandoning the reprobate, God permitted them to be blinded by\nSatan. But that solution is too frivolous, since the Holy Spirit expressly\ndeclares that their blindness and infatuation are inflicted by the\nrighteous judgment of God. He is said to have caused the obduracy of\nPharaoh\u2019s heart, and also to have aggravated and confirmed it. Some elude\nthe force of these expressions with a foolish cavil\u2014that, since Pharaoh\nhimself is elsewhere said to have hardened his own heart, his own will is\nstated as the cause of his obduracy; as though these two things were at\nall incompatible with each other, that man should be actuated by God, and\nyet at the same time be active himself. But I retort on them their own\nobjection; for if _hardening_ denotes a bare permission, Pharaoh cannot\nproperly be charged with being the cause of his own obstinacy. Now, how\nweak and insipid would be such an interpretation, as though Pharaoh only\npermitted himself to be hardened! Besides, the Scripture cuts off all\noccasion for such cavils. God says, \u201cI will harden his heart.\u201d(513) So,\nalso, Moses says, concerning the inhabitants of Canaan, that they marched\nforth to battle, because the Lord had hardened their hearts;(514) which is\nlikewise repeated by another Prophet\u2014\u201cHe turned their hearts to hate his\npeople.\u201d(515) Thus, also, in Isaiah, he declares he will \u201csend the\nAssyrian against a hypocritical nation, and will give him a charge to take\nthe spoil, and to take the prey;\u201d(516) not that he meant to teach impious\nand refractory men a voluntary obedience, but because he would incline\nthem to execute his judgments, just as if they had his commands engraven\non their minds. Hence it appears that they were impelled by the positive\nappointment of God. I grant, indeed, that God often actuates the reprobate\nby the interposition of Satan; but in such a manner that Satan himself\nacts his part by the Divine impulse, and proceeds to the extent of the\nDivine appointment. Saul was disturbed by an evil spirit; but it is said\nto be \u201cfrom the Lord;\u201d(517) to teach us that Saul\u2019s madness proceeded from\nthe righteous vengeance of God. Satan is also said to blind \u201cthe minds of\nthem which believe not;\u201d(518) but the strength of the delusion proceeds\nfrom God himself, \u201cthat they should believe a lie, who believe not the\ntruth.\u201d(519) According to one view of the subject, it is said, \u201cIf the\nprophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived\nthat prophet.\u201d(520) But, according to another, God is said himself to\n\u201cgive men over to a reprobate mind,\u201d(521) and to the vilest lusts; because\nhe is the principal author of his own righteous vengeance, and Satan is\nonly the dispenser of it. But as we must discuss this subject again in the\nsecond book, where we shall treat of the freedom or slavery of the human\nwill, I think I have now said, in a brief manner, as much as the occasion\nrequired. The whole may be summed up thus; that, as the will of God is\nsaid to be the cause of all things, his providence is established as the\ngovernor in all the counsels and works of men, so that it not only exerts\nits power in the elect, who are influenced by the Holy Spirit, but also\ncompels the compliance of the reprobate.\n\nIII. But, as I have hitherto only recited such things as are delivered\nwithout any obscurity or ambiguity in the Scriptures, let persons who\nhesitate not to brand with ignominy those oracles of heaven, beware what\nkind of opposition they make. For, if they pretend ignorance, with a\ndesire to be commended for their modesty, what greater instance of pride\ncan be conceived, than to oppose one little word to the authority of God!\nas, \u201cIt appears otherwise to me,\u201d or, \u201cI would rather not meddle with this\nsubject.\u201d But if they openly censure, what will they gain by their puny\nattempts against heaven? Their petulance, indeed, is no novelty; for in\nall ages there have been impious and profane men, who have virulently\nopposed this doctrine. But they shall feel the truth of what the Spirit\nlong ago declared by the mouth of David, that God \u201cis clear when he\njudgeth.\u201d(522) David obliquely hints at the madness of men who display\nsuch excessive presumption amidst their insignificance, as not only to\ndispute against God, but to arrogate to themselves the power of condemning\nhim. In the mean time, he briefly suggests, that God is unaffected by all\nthe blasphemies which they discharge against heaven, but that he\ndissipates the mists of calumny, and illustriously displays his\nrighteousness; our faith, also, being founded on the Divine word,(523) and\ntherefore, superior to all the world, from its exaltation looks down with\ncontempt upon those mists. For their first objection, that, if nothing\nhappens but by the will of God, he has in him two contrary wills, because\nhe decrees in his secret counsel what he has publicly prohibited in his\nlaw, is easily refuted. But before I reply, I wish the reader again to be\napprized, that this cavil is directed, not against me, but against the\nHoly Spirit, who dictated to the pious Job this confession, that what had\nbefallen him had happened according to the Divine will: when he had been\nplundered by banditti, he acknowledged in their injuries the righteous\nscourge of God.(524) What says the Scripture in another case? \u201cThey,\u201d the\nsons of Eli, \u201chearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the\nLord would slay them.\u201d(525) The Psalmist also exclaims, that \u201cGod,\u201d who\n\u201cis in the heavens, hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.\u201d(526) And now I\nhave sufficiently proved, that God is called the author of all those\nthings, which, according to the system of these censors, happen only by\nhis uninfluential permission. He declares that he creates light and\ndarkness, that he forms good and evil,(527) and that no evil occurs, which\nhe has not performed. Let them say, then, whether he exercises his\njudgments voluntarily or involuntarily. But as Moses suggests, that he who\nis killed by the fortuitous fall of an axe, is delivered by God to the\nstroke,(528) so in the Acts, the whole church asserts that Herod and\nPilate conspired to do what the hand and the counsel of God had\npredetermined.(529) And indeed, unless the crucifixion of Christ was\naccording to the will of God, what becomes of our redemption? Yet the will\nof God is neither repugnant to itself, nor subject to change, nor\nchargeable with pretending to dislike what it approves; but whilst in him\nit is uniform and simple, it wears to us the appearance of variety;\nbecause the weakness of our understanding comprehends not how the same\nthing may be in different respects both agreeable to his will, and\ncontrary to it. Paul, after having said that the vocation of the Gentiles\nwas a hidden mystery, adds, that it contained a manifestation of the\nmanifold wisdom of God.(530) Now, because, through the dulness of our\ncapacity, the Divine wisdom appears to us manifold, (or multiform, as it\nhas been translated by an ancient interpreter,) shall we therefore dream\nof any vanity in God himself, as though his counsels were mutable, or his\nthoughts contradictory to each other? Rather, while we comprehend not how\nGod intends that to be done, the doing of which he forbids, let us\nremember our imbecility, and at the same time consider, that the light\nwhich he inhabits, is justly called inaccessible,(531) because it is\noverspread with impenetrable darkness. Therefore all pious and modest men\nwill easily acquiesce in this opinion of Augustine: \u201cThat a man may\nsometimes choose, with a good intention, that which is not agreeable to\nthe will of God; as, if a good son wishes his father to live, whilst God\ndetermines that he shall die. It is also possible for a man to will with a\nbad design, what God wills with a good one; as, if a bad son wishes his\nfather to die, which is also the will of God. Now, the former wishes what\nis not agreeable, the latter what is agreeable to the Divine will. And yet\nthe filial affection of the former is more consonant to the righteous will\nof God, than the want of natural affection in the latter, though it\naccords with his secret design. So great is the difference between what\nbelongs to the human will, and what to the Divine, and between the ends to\nwhich the will of every one is to be referred, for approbation or censure.\nFor God fulfils his righteous will by the wicked wills of wicked men.\u201d\nThis writer had just before said, that the apostate angels, and all the\nreprobate, in their defection, acted, as far as respected themselves, in\ndirect opposition to the Divine will; but that this was not possible with\nrespect to the Divine omnipotence; because, while they are opposing the\nwill of God, his will is accomplished concerning them. Whence he exclaims,\n\u201cThe works of the Lord are great, prepared according to all his\ndeterminations;\u201d(532) so that, in a wonderful and ineffable manner, that\nis not done without his will which yet is contrary to his will; because it\nwould not be done if he did not permit it; and this permission is not\ninvoluntary, but voluntary; nor would his goodness permit the perpetration\nof any evil, unless his omnipotence were able even from that evil to educe\ngood.\n\nIV. In the same manner we answer, or rather annihilate, another\nobjection\u2014that, if God not only uses the agency of the impious, but\ngoverns their designs and affections, he is the author of all crimes; and\ntherefore men are undeservedly condemned, if they execute what God has\ndecreed, because they obey his will. For his will is improperly confounded\nwith his precept, between which innumerable examples evince the difference\nto be very great. For although, when Absalom defiled the wives of his\nfather, it was the will of God by this disgrace to punish the adultery of\nDavid,(533) he did not therefore command that abandoned son to commit\nincest, unless perhaps with respect to David, as he speaks of the\nreproaches of Shimei.(534) For when he confesses Shimei\u2019s maledictions to\nproceed from the Divine command, he by no means commends his obedience, as\nthough that impudent and worthless man were fulfilling a Divine precept;\nbut acknowledging his tongue as the scourge of God, he patiently submits\nto the chastisement. Let it be remembered, that whilst God by means of the\nimpious fulfils his secret decrees, they are not excusable, as though they\nwere obedient to his precepts, which they wantonly and intentionally\nviolate. The direction of the perverse actions of men, by the secret\nprovidence of God, is illustriously exemplified in the election of\nJeroboam to the regal dignity.(535) The temerity and infatuation of the\npeople in this proceeding are severely condemned,(536) because they\nperverted the order established by God, and perfidiously revolted from the\nfamily of David; and yet we know that this event was agreeable to the\nDivine will. Whence there is an appearance of contradiction also in the\nlanguage of Hosea; for in one place God complains that the erection of\nthat kingdom was without his knowledge and against his will; but in\nanother declares that he gave Jeroboam to be a king in his anger.(537) How\ncan these things be reconciled, that Jeroboam did not reign by the will of\nGod, and yet that God appointed him to be king? Why, thus: because neither\ncould the people revolt from the family of David, without shaking off the\nyoke which God had imposed upon them; nor yet was God deprived of the\nliberty of thus punishing the ingratitude of Solomon. We see, then, how\nGod, while he hates perfidy, yet righteously and with a different design\ndecrees the defection; whence also Jeroboam is, beyond all expectation,\nconstrained by the holy unction to assume the regal office. In the same\nmanner, the Sacred History relates, that God raised up an enemy, to\ndeprive the son of Solomon of part of the kingdom.(538) Let the reader\ndiligently consider both these things: because it had pleased God that the\npeople should be under the government of one king, their division into two\nparts was contrary to his will; and yet from his will the schism first\noriginated. For certainly since a Prophet, both by a prediction and by the\nceremony of unction, excited a hope of succeeding to the kingdom, in the\nmind of Jeroboam, who before entertained not a thought of such an event,\nthis could not be done, either without the knowledge, or against the will,\nof God, who commanded it to be done; and yet the rebellion of the people\nis justly condemned, because, in opposition to the Divine will, they\nrevolted from the posterity of David. Thus, also, it is afterwards\nsubjoined, that \u201cthe cause\u201d of the haughty contempt of the people\nmanifested by Rehoboam \u201cwas of God, that the Lord might perform his word,\nwhich he spake by the hand of Ahijah\u201d his servant.(539) See how the sacred\nunion is divided, in opposition to the will of God, and yet by his will\nthe ten tribes are alienated from the son of Solomon. Let us add another\nsimilar example, where, with the consent, and even by the assistance of\nthe people, the sons of Ahab are massacred, and all his posterity\nexterminated.(540) Jehu, indeed, truly observed that \u201cthere had fallen\nunto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord,\u201d but that he had \u201cdone\nthat which he spake by his servant Elijah.\u201d And yet he justly reprehends\nthe citizens of Samaria for having lent their assistance. \u201cAre ye\nrighteous?\u201d says he; \u201cbehold, I conspired against my master, and slew him;\nbut who slew all these?\u201d If I am not deceived, I have now clearly\nexplained how the same act displays the criminality of men and the justice\nof God. And to modest minds this answer of Augustine will always be\nsufficient: \u201cSince God delivered Christ, and Christ delivered his own\nbody, and Judas delivered the Lord, why, in this delivery, is God\nrighteous and man guilty? Because in the same act, they acted not from the\nsame cause.\u201d But if any persons find greater difficulty in what we now\nassert, that there is no consent between God and man, in cases where man\nby his righteous influence commits unlawful actions, let them remember\nwhat is advanced by Augustine in another place: \u201cWho can but tremble at\nthose judgments, when God does even in the hearts of the wicked whatsoever\nhe pleases, and yet renders to them according to their demerits?\u201d And\ncertainly it would no more be right to attribute to God the blame of the\nperfidy of Judas, because he decreed the delivery of his Son, and actually\ndelivered him to death, than to transfer to Judas the praise of\nredemption. Therefore the same writer elsewhere informs us, that in this\nscrutiny God inquires, not what men could have done, nor what they have\ndone, but what they intended to do, that he may take cognizance of their\ndesign and their will. Let those to whom there appears any harshness in\nthis procedure, consider a little how far their obstinacy is tolerable,\nwhile they reject a truth which is attested by plain testimonies of\nScripture, because it exceeds their comprehension, and condemn the\npublication of those things which God, unless he had known that the\nknowledge of them would be useful, would never have commanded to be taught\nby his Prophets and Apostles. For our wisdom ought to consist in embracing\nwith gentle docility, and without any exception, all that is delivered in\nthe sacred Scriptures. But those who oppose this doctrine with less\nmodesty and greater violence, since it is evident that their opposition is\nagainst God, are unworthy of a longer refutation.\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II. ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE REDEEMER IN CHRIST, WHICH WAS\nREVEALED FIRST TO THE FATHERS UNDER THE LAW, AND SINCE TO US IN THE\nGOSPEL.\n\n\n\n\nArgument.\n\n\nThe discussion of the first part of the Apostolic Creed, on the knowledge\nof God the Creator, being finished, is followed by another, on the\nknowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, which is the subject of this\nSecond Book.\n\nIt treats, first, of the occasion of redemption, that is, the fall of\nAdam; secondly, of the redemption itself. The former of these subjects\noccupies the first five chapters; the remaining ones are assigned to the\nlatter.\n\nOn the occasion of redemption, it treats, not only of the fall in general,\nbut also of its effects in particular; that is, of original sin, the\nslavery of the will, the universal corruption of human nature, the\noperation of God in the hearts of men\u2014Chap. I.\u2010IV., to which is subjoined\na refutation of the objections commonly adduced in defence of free\nwill\u2014Chap. V.\n\nThe discourse on redemption may be divided into five principal parts. It\nshows,\n\n1. In whom salvation must be sought by lost man, that is, in Christ\u2014Chap.\nVI.\n\n2. How Christ has been manifested to the world; which has been in two\nways; first, under the law (which introduces an explanation of the\nDecalogue, and a discussion of some other things relative to the\nLaw)\u2014Chap. VII. VIII.; secondly, under the Gospel, which leads to a\nstatement of the similarity and difference of the two Testaments\u2014Chap.\nIX.\u2010XI.\n\n3. What kind of a being it was necessary for Christ to be, in order to his\nfulfilment of the office of a Mediator; that is, God and man in one\nperson\u2014Chap. XII.\u2010XIV.\n\n4. The end of his mission from the Father into the world\u2014Chap. XV., which\nexplains his prophetical, regal, and sacerdotal offices.\n\n5. The methods or steps by which he fulfilled the part of a Redeemer, to\nprocure our salvation\u2014Chap. XVI.; which discusses the articles relating to\nhis crucifixion, death, burial, descent into hell, resurrection, ascension\nto heaven, session at the right hand of the Father, and the benefits\narising from this doctrine. Then follows Chap. XVII., a solution of the\nquestion, Whether Christ merited for us the grace of God and salvation.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. The Fall And Defection Of Adam The Cause Of The Curse Inflicted\nOn All Mankind, And Of Their Degeneracy From Their Primitive Condition.\nThe Doctrine Of Original Sin.\n\n\nThere is much reason in the old adage, which so strongly recommends to man\nthe knowledge of himself. For if it be thought disgraceful to be ignorant\nof whatever relates to the conduct of human life, ignorance of ourselves\nis much more shameful, which causes us, in deliberating on subjects of\nimportance, to grope our way in miserable obscurity, or even in total\ndarkness. But in proportion to the utility of this precept ought to be our\ncaution not to make a preposterous use of it; as we see some philosophers\nhave done. For while they exhort man to the knowledge of himself, the end\nthey propose is, that he may not remain ignorant of his own dignity and\nexcellence: nor do they wish him to contemplate in himself any thing but\nwhat may swell him with vain confidence, and inflate him with pride. But\nthe knowledge of ourselves consists, first, in considering what was\nbestowed on us at our creation, and the favours we continually receive\nfrom the Divine benignity, that we may know how great the excellence of\nour nature would have been, if it had retained its integrity; yet, at the\nsame time, recollecting that we have nothing properly our own, may feel\nour precarious tenure of all that God has conferred on us, so as always to\nplace our dependence upon him. Secondly, we should contemplate our\nmiserable condition since the fall of Adam, the sense of which tends to\ndestroy all boasting and confidence, to overwhelm us with shame, and to\nfill us with real humility. For as God, at the beginning, formed us after\nhis own image, that he might elevate our minds both to the practice of\nvirtue, and to the contemplation of eternal life, so, to prevent the great\nexcellence of our species, which distinguishes us from the brutes, from\nbeing buried in sottish indolence, it is worthy of observation, that the\ndesign of our being endued with reason and intelligence is, that, leading\na holy and virtuous life, we may aspire to the mark set before us of a\nblessed immortality. But we cannot think upon that primeval dignity,\nwithout having our attention immediately called to the melancholy\nspectacle of our disgrace and ignominy, since in the person of the first\nman we are fallen from our original condition. Hence arise disapprobation\nand abhorrence of ourselves, and real humility; and we are inflamed with\nfresh ardour to seek after God, to recover in him those excellences of\nwhich we find ourselves utterly destitute.\n\nII. This is what the truth of God directs us to seek in the examination of\nourselves: it requires a knowledge that will abstract us from all\nconfidence in our own ability, deprive us of every cause of boasting, and\nreduce us to submission. We must observe this rule, if we wish to reach\nthe proper point of knowledge and action. I am aware of the superior\nplausibility of that opinion, which invites us rather to a consideration\nof our goodness, than to a view of our miserable poverty and ignominy,\nwhich ought to overwhelm us with shame. For there is nothing more desired\nby the human mind than soothing flatteries; and therefore, it listens with\nextreme credulity, to hear its excellences magnified. Wherefore it is the\nless wonderful that the majority of mankind have fallen into such a\npernicious error. For, an immoderate self\u2010love being innate in all men,\nthey readily persuade themselves that there is nothing in them which\njustly deserves to be an object of aversion. Thus, without any extraneous\nsupport, this very false opinion, that man has in himself sufficient\nability to insure his own virtue and happiness, generally prevails. But if\nsome prefer more modest sentiments, though they concede something to God,\nin order to avoid the appearance of arrogating every thing to themselves,\nyet they make such a distribution, that the principal cause of boasting\nand confidence always remains with them. If they hear any discourse that\nflatters the pride already operating spontaneously in their hearts,\nnothing can gratify them more. Therefore every one who in his preaching\nhas kindly extolled the excellence of human nature, has received great\napplause from almost all ages. But such a commendation of human excellence\nas teaches man to be satisfied with himself, only enamours him of his own\namiableness, and thus produces an illusion which involves those who assent\nto it in most dreadful perdition. For to what purpose is it for us,\nrelying on every vain confidence, to deliberate, to determine, and to\nattempt things which we think tend to our advantage, and in our first\nefforts, to find ourselves destitute of sound understanding and true\nvirtue, yet securely to proceed, till we fall into destruction? But this\nmust be the fate of all who confide in the efficacy of their own virtue.\nWhosoever, therefore, attends to such teachers as amuse us with a mere\nexhibition of our virtues, will make no progress in the knowledge of\nhimself, but will be absorbed in the most pernicious ignorance.\n\nIII. Therefore, whilst the truth of God agrees in this point with the\ncommon consent of all mankind, that the second branch of wisdom consists\nin the knowledge of ourselves, yet with respect to the knowledge itself\nthere is no small disagreement. For, according to carnal apprehension, a\nman is thought to be well acquainted with himself, when, confiding in his\nown understanding and integrity, he assumes a presumptuous boldness,\nincites himself to the duties of virtue, and, declaring war against vice,\nuses his most strenuous endeavours to adhere to what is fair and\nhonourable. But he, who inspects and examines himself by the rule of the\nDivine judgment, finds nothing that can raise his mind to a genuine\nconfidence; and the more fully he has examined himself, the greater is his\ndejection; till, entirely discarding all confidence, he leaves himself no\nability for the proper conduct of his life. Yet it is not the will of God\nthat we should forget the primitive dignity conferred by him on our father\nAdam, which ought justly to awaken us to the pursuit of righteousness and\ngoodness. For we cannot reflect on our original condition, and on the end\nof our creation, without being excited to meditate on immortality, and to\naspire after the kingdom of God. But this reflection is so far from\nelating us with pride, that it rather produces humility. For what is that\noriginal condition? That from which we are fallen. What is that end of our\ncreation? That from which we are wholly departed; so that we should lament\nthe miseries of our present state, and in the midst of our lamentation,\naspire after the dignity which we have lost. Now, when we say that man\nshould behold in himself nothing that might elate him with pride, we mean\nthat there is nothing in him in the confidence of which he ought to be\nproud. Wherefore we may divide the knowledge man ought to have of himself\ninto these two parts. First, he should consider the end of his being\ncreated and endued with such estimable gifts; a reflection which may\nexcite him to the consideration of Divine worship, and of a future life.\nSecondly, he should examine his own ability, or rather his want of\nability, the view of which may confound and almost annihilate him. The\nformer consideration is adapted to acquaint him with his duty, the latter\nwith his power to perform it. We shall treat of them both in regular\norder.\n\nIV. But, since it could not have been a trivial offence, but must have\nbeen a detestable crime, that was so severely punished by God, we must\nconsider the nature of Adam\u2019s sin, which kindled the dreadful flame of\nDivine wrath against the whole human race. The vulgar opinion concerning\nthe intemperance of gluttony is quite puerile; as though the sum and\nsubstance of all virtues consisted in an abstinence from one particular\nkind of fruit, when there were diffused on every side all the delights\nwhich could possibly be desired, and the happy fecundity of the earth\nafforded an abundance and variety of dainties. We must therefore look\nfurther, because the prohibition of the tree of knowledge of good and evil\nwas a test of obedience, that Adam might prove his willing submission to\nthe Divine government. And the name itself shows that the precept was\ngiven for no other purpose than that he might be contented with his\ncondition, and not aim with criminal cupidity at any higher. But the\npromise which authorized him to expect eternal life, as long as he should\neat of the tree of life, and, on the other hand, the dreadful denunciation\nof death, as soon as he should taste of the tree of knowledge of good and\nevil, were calculated for the probation and exercise of his faith. Hence\nit is easy to infer by what means Adam provoked the wrath of God against\nhim. Augustine, indeed, properly observes, that pride was the first of all\nevils; because, if ambition had not elated man beyond what was lawful and\nright, he might have continued in his honourable situation. But we may\nobtain a more complete definition from the nature of the temptation as\ndescribed by Moses. For as the woman, by the subtlety of the serpent, was\nseduced to discredit the word of God, it is evident that the fall\ncommenced in disobedience. This is also confirmed by Paul, who states that\nall men were ruined by the disobedience of one.(541) But it is also to be\nobserved, that when the first man rebelled against the government of God,\nhe not only was ensnared by the allurements of Satan, but despised the\ntruth, and turned aside to falsehood. And there certainly can be no\nreverence of God left, where his word is contemned; for we preserve a\nsense of his majesty and the purity of his worship, no longer than we\nimplicitly attend to his voice. Infidelity, therefore, was the root of\nthat defection. But hence sprang ambition, pride, and ingratitude, since\nAdam, by coveting more than was granted, offered an indignity to the\nDivine goodness, which had so greatly enriched him. Now, it was monstrous\nimpiety, that a son of the earth should not be satisfied with being made\nafter the similitude of God, unless he could also be equal to him. If\napostasy, which consists in revolting from the government of the Creator,\nand petulantly rejecting his authority, be a base and execrable crime, it\nis a vain attempt to extenuate the sin of Adam. Though the transgression\nof our first parents was not simple apostasy; they were also guilty of\nvile reproaches against God, in consenting to the calumnies of Satan, who\naccused God of falsehood, envy, and malignity. Finally, infidelity opened\nthe gate to ambition, and ambition produced obstinacy, so that they cast\noff the fear of God, and precipitated themselves whithersoever they were\nled by their lawless desires. With propriety, therefore, Bernard teaches\nthat the gate of salvation is opened to us, when in the present day we\nreceive the Gospel with our ears, as death was once admitted at the same\ndoors when they lay open to Satan. For Adam had never dared to resist the\nauthority of God, if he had not discredited his word. This was certainly\nthe best check for a due regulation of all the affections, that the chief\ngood consists in the practice of righteousness, in obedience to the\ncommands of God; and that the ultimate end of a happy life is to be\nbeloved by him. Being seduced, therefore, by the blasphemies of the devil,\nhe did all that was in his power towards a total annihilation of the glory\nof God.\n\nV. As the spiritual life of Adam consisted in a union to his Maker, so an\nalienation from him was the death of his soul. Nor is it surprising that\nhe ruined his posterity by his defection, which has perverted the whole\norder of nature in heaven and earth. \u201cThe creatures groan,\u201d says Paul,\n\u201cbeing made subject to vanity, not willingly.\u201d(542) If the cause be\ninquired, it is undoubtedly that they sustain part of the punishment due\nto the demerits of man, for whose use they were created. And his guilt\nbeing the origin of that curse which extends to every part of the world,\nit is reasonable to conclude its propagation to all his offspring.\nTherefore, when the Divine image in him was obliterated, and he was\npunished with the loss of wisdom, strength, sanctity, truth, and\nrighteousness, with which he had been adorned, but which were succeeded by\nthe dreadful pests of ignorance, impotence, impurity, vanity, and\niniquity, he suffered not alone, but involved all his posterity with him,\nand plunged them into the same miseries. This is that hereditary\ncorruption which the fathers called _original sin_; meaning by sin, the\ndepravation of a nature previously good and pure; on which subject they\nhad much contention, nothing being more remote from natural reason, than\nthat all should be criminated on account of the guilt of one, and thus his\nsin become common; which seems to have been the reason why the most\nancient doctors of the Church did but obscurely glance at this point, or\nat least explained it with less perspicuity than it required. Yet this\ntimidity could not prevent Pelagius from arising, who profanely pretended,\nthat the sin of Adam only ruined himself, and did not injure his\ndescendants. By concealing the disease with this delusion, Satan attempted\nto render it incurable. But when it was evinced by the plain testimony of\nthe Scripture, that sin was communicated from the first man to all his\nposterity, he sophistically urged that it was communicated by imitation,\nnot by propagation. Therefore good men, and beyond all others Augustine,\nhave laboured to demonstrate that we are not corrupted by any adventitious\nmeans, but that we derive an innate depravity from our very birth. The\ndenial of this was an instance of consummate impudence. But the temerity\nof the Pelagians and Celestians will not appear surprising to him who\nperceives from the writings of Augustine, what a want of modesty they\ndiscover in every thing else. There is certainly no ambiguity in the\nconfession of David, that he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin his mother\nconceived him.(543) He is not there exposing the sins of his mother or of\nhis father; but to enhance his commendations of the Divine goodness\ntowards him, he commences the confession of his depravity from the time of\nhis conception. As it is evident that this was not peculiar to David, it\nis fairly concluded, that his case exemplifies the common condition of\nmankind. Every descendant, therefore, from the impure source, is born\ninfected with the contagion of sin; and even before we behold the light of\nlife, we are in the sight of God defiled and polluted. For \u201cwho can bring\na clean thing out of an unclean?\u201d The book of Job tells us, \u201cNot\none.\u201d(544)\n\nVI. We have heard that the impurity of the parents is so transmitted to\nthe children, that all, without a single exception, are polluted as soon\nas they exist. But we shall not find the origin of this pollution, unless\nwe ascend to the first parent of us all, as to the fountain which sends\nforth all the streams. Thus it is certain that Adam was not only the\nprogenitor, but as it were the root of mankind, and therefore that all the\nrace were necessarily vitiated in his corruption. The Apostle explains\nthis by a comparison between him and Christ: \u201cAs,\u201d says he, \u201cby one man\nsin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all\nmen, for that all have sinned,\u201d(545) so, by the grace of Christ,\nrighteousness and life have been restored to us. What cavil will the\nPelagians raise here? That the sin of Adam was propagated by imitation? Do\nwe then receive no other advantage from the righteousness of Christ than\nthe proposal of an example for our imitation? Who can bear such blasphemy?\nBut if it cannot be controverted that the righteousness of Christ is ours\nby communication, and life as its consequence, it is equally evident that\nboth were lost in Adam, in the same manner in which they were recovered in\nChrist, and that sin and death were introduced by Adam, in the same manner\nin which they are abolished by Christ. There is no obscurity in the\ndeclaration that many are made righteous by the obedience of Christ,(546)\nas they had been made sinners by the disobedience of Adam. And, therefore,\nbetween these two persons there is this relation, that the one ruined us\nby involving us in his destruction, the other by his grace has restored us\nto salvation. Any more prolix or tedious proof of a truth supported by\nsuch clear evidence must, I think, be unnecessary. Thus also in the First\nEpistle to the Corinthians, with a view to confirm the pious in a\nconfidence of the resurrection, he shows, that the life which had been\nlost in Adam, was recovered in Christ.(547) He, who pronounces that we\nwere all dead in Adam, does also at the same time plainly declare, that we\nwere implicated in the guilt of his sin. For no condemnation could reach\nthose who were perfectly clear from all charge of iniquity. But his\nmeaning cannot be better understood than from the relation of the other\nmember of the sentence, where he informs us that the hope of life is\nrestored in Christ. But that is well known to be accomplished, only when\nChrist, by a wonderful communication, transfuses into us the virtue of his\nrighteousness; as it is elsewhere said, \u201cThe Spirit is life, because of\nrighteousness.\u201d(548) No other explanation therefore can be given of our\nbeing said to be dead in Adam, than that his transgression not only\nprocured misery and ruin for himself, but also precipitated our nature\ninto similar destruction. And that not by his personal guilt as an\nindividual, which pertains not to us, but because he infected all his\ndescendants with the corruption into which he had fallen. Otherwise there\nwould be no truth in the assertion of Paul, that all are by nature\nchildren of wrath,(549) if they had not been already under the curse even\nbefore their birth. Now, it is easily inferred that our nature is there\ncharacterized, not as it was created by God, but as it was vitiated in\nAdam; because it would be unreasonable to make God the author of death.\nAdam, therefore, corrupted himself in such a manner, that the contagion\nhas been communicated from him to all his offspring. And Christ himself,\nthe heavenly Judge, declares, in the most unequivocal terms, that all are\nborn in a state of pravity and corruption, when he teaches, that\n\u201cwhatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh,\u201d(550) and that, therefore, the\ngate of life is closed against all who have not been regenerated.\n\nVII. Nor, to enable us to understand this subject, have we any need to\nenter on that tedious dispute, with which the fathers were not a little\nperplexed, whether the soul of a son proceeds by derivation or\ntransmission from the soul of the father, because the soul is the\nprincipal seat of the pollution. We ought to be satisfied with this, that\nthe Lord deposited with Adam the endowments he chose to confer on the\nhuman nature; and therefore that when he lost the favours he had received,\nhe lost them not only for himself, but for us all. Who will be solicitous\nabout a transmission of the soul, when he hears that Adam received the\nornaments that he lost, no less for us than for himself? that they were\ngiven, not to one man only, but to the whole human nature? There is\nnothing absurd therefore, if, in consequence of his being spoiled of his\ndignities, that nature be destitute and poor; if, in consequence of his\nbeing polluted with sin, the whole nature be infected with the contagion.\nFrom a putrefied root, therefore, have sprung putrid branches, which have\ntransmitted their putrescence to remoter ramifications. For the children\nwere so vitiated in their parent, that they became contagious to their\ndescendants: there was in Adam such a spring of corruption, that it is\ntransfused from parents to children in a perpetual stream. But the cause\nof the contagion is not in the substance of the body or of the soul; but\nbecause it was ordained by God, that the gifts which he conferred on the\nfirst man should by him be preserved or lost both for himself and for all\nhis posterity. But the cavil of the Pelagians, that it is improbable that\nchildren should derive corruption from pious parents, whereas they ought\nrather to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted. For they\ndescend from their carnal generation, not from their spiritual generation.\nTherefore, as Augustine says, \u201cNeither the guilty unbeliever, nor the\njustified believer, generates innocent, but guilty children, because the\ngeneration of both is from corrupted nature.\u201d If they in some measure\nparticipate of the sanctity of their parents, that is the peculiar\nbenediction of the people of God, which supersedes not the first and\nuniversal curse previously denounced on the human nature. For their guilt\nis from nature, but their sanctification from supernatural grace.\n\nVIII. To remove all uncertainty and misunderstanding on this subject, let\nus define original sin. It is not my intention to discuss all the\ndefinitions given by writers; I shall only produce one, which I think\nperfectly consistent with the truth. Original sin, therefore, appears to\nbe an hereditary pravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through\nall the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the Divine wrath, and\nproducing in us those works which the Scripture calls \u201cworks of the\nflesh.\u201d(551) And this is indeed what Paul frequently denominates _sin_.\nThe works which proceed thence, such as adulteries, fornications, thefts,\nhatreds, murders, revellings, he calls in the same manner \u201cfruits of sin;\u201d\nalthough they are also called \u201csins\u201d in many passages of Scripture, and\neven by himself. These two things therefore should be distinctly observed:\nfirst, that our nature being so totally vitiated and depraved, we are, on\naccount of this very corruption, considered as convicted and justly\ncondemned in the sight of God, to whom nothing is acceptable but\nrighteousness, innocence, and purity. And this liableness to punishment\narises not from the delinquency of another; for when it is said that the\nsin of Adam renders us obnoxious to the Divine judgment, it is not to be\nunderstood as if we, though innocent, were undeservedly loaded with the\nguilt of his sin; but, because we are all subject to a curse, in\nconsequence of his transgression, he is therefore said to have involved us\nin guilt. Nevertheless we derive from him, not only the punishment, but\nalso the pollution to which the punishment is justly due. Wherefore\nAugustine, though he frequently calls it the sin of another, the more\nclearly to indicate its transmission to us by propagation, yet, at the\nsame time, also asserts it properly to belong to every individual. And the\nApostle himself expressly declares, that \u201cdeath has therefore passed upon\nall men, for that all have sinned;\u201d(552) that is, have been involved in\noriginal sin, and defiled with its blemishes. And therefore infants\nthemselves, as they bring their condemnation into the world with them, are\nrendered obnoxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by the\nsinfulness of another. For though they have not yet produced the fruits of\ntheir iniquity, yet they have the seed of it within them; even their whole\nnature is as it were a seed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and\nabominable to God. Whence it follows, that it is properly accounted sin in\nthe sight of God, because there could be no guilt without crime. The other\nthing to be remarked is, that this depravity never ceases in us, but is\nperpetually producing new fruits, those works of the flesh, which we have\nbefore described, like the emission of flame and sparks from a heated\nfurnace, or like the streams of water from a never failing spring.\nWherefore those who have defined original sin as a privation of the\noriginal righteousness, which we ought to possess, though they comprise\nthe whole of the subject, yet have not used language sufficiently\nexpressive of its operation and influence. For our nature is not only\ndestitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot\nremain inactive. Those who have called it _concupiscence_ have used an\nexpression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being\nconceded by most persons, that every thing in man, the understanding and\nwill, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence;\nor, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but\nconcupiscence.\n\nIX. Wherefore I have asserted that sin has possessed all the powers of the\nsoul, since Adam departed from the fountain of righteousness. For man has\nnot only been ensnared by the inferior appetites, but abominable impiety\nhas seized the very citadel of his mind, and pride has penetrated into the\ninmost recesses of his heart; so that it is weak and foolish to restrict\nthe corruption which has proceeded thence, to what are called the sensual\naffections, or to call it an incentive which allures, excites, and\nattracts to sin, only what they style the sensual part. In this the\ngrossest ignorance has been discovered by Peter Lombard, who, when\ninvestigating the seat of it, says that it is in the flesh, according to\nthe testimony of Paul,(553) not indeed exclusively, but because it\nprincipally appears in the flesh; as though Paul designated only a part of\nthe soul, and not the whole of our nature, which is opposed to\nsupernatural grace. Now, Paul removes every doubt by informing us that the\ncorruption resides not in one part only, but that there is nothing pure\nand uncontaminated by its mortal infection. For, when arguing respecting\ncorrupt nature, he not only condemns the inordinate motions of the\nappetites, but principally insists on the blindness of the mind, and the\ndepravity of the heart;(554) and the third chapter of his Epistle to the\nRomans is nothing but a description of original sin. This appears more\nevident from our renovation. For \u201cthe Spirit,\u201d which is opposed to \u201cthe\nold man\u201d and \u201cthe flesh,\u201d not only denotes the grace, which corrects the\ninferior or sensual part of the soul, but comprehends a complete\nreformation of all its powers. And therefore Paul not only enjoins us to\nmortify our sensual appetites, but exhorts us to be renewed in the spirit\nof our mind;(555) and in another place he directs us to be transformed by\nthe renewing of our mind.(556) Whence it follows, that that part, which\nprincipally displays the excellence and dignity of the soul, is not only\nwounded, but so corrupted, that it requires not merely to be healed, but\nto receive a new nature. How far sin occupies both the mind and the heart,\nwe shall presently see. My intention here was only to hint, in a brief\nway, that man is so totally overwhelmed, as with a deluge, that no part is\nfree from sin; and therefore that whatever proceeds from him is accounted\nsin; as Paul says that all the affections or thoughts of the flesh are\nenmity against God, and therefore death.(557)\n\nX. Now, let us dismiss those who dare to charge God with their\ncorruptions, because we say that men are naturally corrupt. They err in\nseeking for the work of God in their own pollution, whereas they should\nrather seek it in the nature of Adam while yet innocent and uncorrupted.\nOur perdition therefore proceeds from the sinfulness of our flesh, not\nfrom God; it being only a consequence of our degenerating from our\nprimitive condition. And let no one murmur that God might have made a\nbetter provision for our safety, by preventing the fall of Adam. For such\nan objection ought to be abominated, as too presumptuously curious, by all\npious minds; and it also belongs to the mystery of predestination, which\nshall afterwards be treated in its proper place. Wherefore let us\nremember, that our ruin must be imputed to the corruption of our nature,\nthat we may not bring an accusation against God himself, the author of\nnature. That this fatal wound is inherent in our nature, is indeed a\ntruth; but it is an important question, whether it was in it originally,\nor was derived from any extraneous cause. But it is evident that it was\noccasioned by sin. We have therefore no reason to complain, but of\nourselves; which in the Scripture is distinctly remarked. For the Preacher\nsays, \u201cThis only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they\nhave sought out many inventions.\u201d(558) It is clear that the misery of man\nmust be ascribed solely to himself, since he was favoured with rectitude\nby the Divine goodness, but has lapsed into vanity through his own folly.\n\nXI. We say, therefore, that man is corrupted by a natural depravity, but\nwhich did not originate from nature. We deny that it proceeded from\nnature, to signify that it is rather an adventitious quality or accident,\nthan a substantial property originally innate. Yet we call it natural,\nthat no one may suppose it to be contracted by every individual from\ncorrupt habit, whereas it prevails over all by hereditary right. Nor is\nthis representation of ours without authority. For the same reason the\nApostle says, that we are all by nature the children of wrath.(559) How\ncould God, who is pleased with all his meanest works, be angry with the\nnoblest of all his creatures? But he is angry rather with the corruption\nof his work, than with his work itself. Therefore, if, on account of the\ncorruption of human nature, man be justly said to be naturally abominable\nto God, he may also be truly said to be naturally depraved and corrupt; as\nAugustine, in consequence of the corruption of nature, hesitates not to\ncall those sins natural, which necessarily predominate in our flesh, where\nthey are not prevented by the grace of God. Thus vanishes the foolish and\nnugatory system of the Manich\u00e6ans, who, having imagined in man a\nsubstantial wickedness, presumed to invent for him a new creator, that\nthey might not appear to assign the cause and origin of evil to a\nrighteous God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. Man, In His Present State, Despoiled Of Freedom Of Will, And\nSubjected To A Miserable Slavery.\n\n\nSince we have seen that the domination of sin, from the time of its\nsubjugation of the first man, not only extends over the whole race, but\nalso exclusively possesses every soul, it now remains to be more closely\ninvestigated, whether we are despoiled of all freedom, and, if any\nparticle of it yet remain, how far its power extends. But, that we may the\nmore easily discover the truth of this question, I will first set up by\nthe way a mark, by which our whole course must be regulated. The best\nmethod of guarding against error is to consider the dangers which threaten\nus on every side. For when man is declared to be destitute of all\nrectitude, he immediately makes it an occasion of slothfulness; and\nbecause he is said to have no power of himself for the pursuit of\nrighteousness, he totally neglects it, as though it did not at all concern\nhim. On the other hand, he cannot arrogate any thing to himself, be it\never so little, without God being robbed of his honour, and himself being\nendangered by presumptuous temerity. Therefore, to avoid striking on\neither of these rocks, this will be the course to be pursued\u2014that man,\nbeing taught that he has nothing good left in his possession, and being\nsurrounded on every side with the most miserable necessity, should,\nnevertheless, be instructed to aspire to the good of which he is\ndestitute, and to the liberty of which he is deprived; and should be\nroused from indolence with more earnestness, than if he were supposed to\nbe possessed of the greatest strength. The necessity of the latter is\nobvious to every one. The former, I perceive, is doubted by more than it\nought to be. For this being placed beyond all controversy, that man must\nnot be deprived of any thing that properly belongs to him, it ought also\nto be manifest how important it is that he should be prevented from false\nboasting. For if he was not even then permitted to glory in himself, when\nby the Divine beneficence he was decorated with the noblest ornaments, how\nmuch ought he now to be humbled, when, on account of his ingratitude, he\nhas been hurled from the summit of glory to the abyss of ignominy! At that\ntime, I say, when he was exalted to the most honourable eminence, the\nScripture attributes nothing to him, but that he was created after the\nimage of God; which certainly implies that his happiness consisted not in\nany goodness of his own, but in a participation of God. What, then,\nremains for him now, deprived of all glory, but that he acknowledge God,\nto whose beneficence he could not be thankful, when he abounded in the\nriches of his favour? and that he now, at least, by a confession of his\npoverty, glorify him, whom he glorified not by an acknowledgment of his\nblessings? It is also no less conducive to our interests than to the\nDivine glory, that all the praise of wisdom and strength be taken away\nfrom us; so that they join sacrilege to our fall, who ascribe to us any\nthing more than truly belongs to us. For what else is the consequence,\nwhen we are taught to contend in our own strength, but that we are lifted\ninto the air on a reed, which being soon broken, we fall to the ground.\nThough our strength is placed in too favourable a point of view, when it\nis compared to a reed. For it is nothing but smoke, whatever vain men have\nimagined and pretend concerning it. Wherefore it is not without reason,\nthat that remarkable sentence is so frequently repeated by Augustine, that\nfree will is rather overthrown than established even by its own advocates.\nIt was necessary to premise these things for the sake of some, who, when\nthey hear that human power is completely subverted in order that the power\nof God may be established in man, inveterately hate this whole argument,\nas dangerous and unprofitable; which yet appears to be highly useful to\nus, and essential to true religion.\n\nII. As we have just before said that the faculties of the soul consist in\nthe mind and the heart, let us now consider the ability of each. The\nphilosophers, indeed, with general consent, pretend, that in the mind\npresides Reason, which like a lamp illuminates with its counsels, and like\na queen governs the will; for that it is so irradiated with Divine light\nas to be able to give the best counsels, and endued with such vigour as to\nbe qualified to govern in the most excellent manner; that Sense, on the\ncontrary, is torpid and afflicted with weakness of sight, so that it\nalways creeps on the ground, and is absorbed in the grossest objects, nor\never elevates itself to a view of the truth; that Appetite, if it can\nsubmit to the obedience of reason, and resist the attractions of sense, is\ninclined to the practice of virtues, travels the path of rectitude, and is\nformed into will; but that, if it be devoted to the servitude of sense, it\nis thereby so corrupted and depraved as to degenerate into lust. And as,\naccording to their opinion, there reside in the soul those faculties which\nI have before mentioned, understanding, sense, and appetite, or\nwill,\u2014which appellation is now more commonly used,\u2014they assert that the\nunderstanding is endued with reason, that most excellent guide to a good\nand a happy life, provided it only maintains itself in its own excellence,\nand exerts its innate power; but that the inferior affection of the soul,\nwhich is called _sense_, and by which it is seduced into error, is of such\na nature that it may be tamed and gradually conquered by the rod of\nreason. They place the will in the middle station between reason and\nsense, as perfectly at liberty, whether it chooses to obey reason, or to\nsubmit to the violence of sense.\n\nIII. Sometimes, indeed, being convinced by the testimony of experience,\nthey admit how extremely difficult it is for a man to establish within him\nthe kingdom of reason; while he is exposed at one time to the\nsolicitations of alluring pleasures, at another to the delusions of\npretended blessings, and at others to the violent agitations of immoderate\npassions, compared by Plato to so many cords dragging him in various\ndirections. For which reason Cicero says that the sparks kindled by nature\nare soon extinguished by corrupt opinions and evil manners. But when such\nmaladies have once taken possession of the human mind, they acknowledge\ntheir progress to be too violent to be easily restrained; nor do they\nhesitate to compare them to fierce horses, who, having rejected reason,\nlike horses that have thrown off the charioteer, indulge themselves in\nevery extravagance, without the least restraint. But they consider it as\nbeyond all controversy, that virtue and vice are in our own power; for if\nit be at our election, they say, to do this or that, therefore it must\nalso be, to abstain from doing it. And, on the other hand, if we are free\nto abstain from it, we must also be free to do it. But we appear freely\nand voluntarily to do those things which we do, and to abstain from those\nthings from which we abstain; therefore, if we do any good action, when we\nplease we may omit it; if we perpetrate any evil, that also we may avoid.\nMoreover, some of them have advanced to such a degree of presumption, as\nto boast, that we are indebted to the gods for our life, but for a\nvirtuous and religious one to ourselves; whence also that assertion of\nCicero, in the person of Cotta, that, since every man acquires virtue for\nhimself, none of the wise men have ever thanked God for it. \u201cFor,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cwe are praised for virtue, and in virtue we glory; which would not be\nthe case, if it were a gift of God, and did not originate from ourselves.\u201d\nAnd a little after: \u201cThis is the judgment of all men, that fortune must be\nasked of God, but that wisdom must be derived from ourselves.\u201d This, then,\nis the substance of the opinion of all the philosophers, that the reason\nof the human understanding is sufficient for its proper government; that\nthe will, being subject to it, is indeed solicited by sense to evil\nobjects, but, as it has a free choice, there can be no impediment to its\nfollowing reason as its guide in all things.\n\nIV. Among the ecclesiastical writers, though there has not been one who\nwould not acknowledge both that human reason is grievously wounded by sin,\nand that the will is very much embarrassed by corrupt affections, yet many\nof them have followed the philosophers far beyond what is right. The early\nfathers appear to me to have thus extolled human power from a fear lest,\nif they openly confessed its impotence, they might, in the first place,\nincur the derision of the philosophers, with whom they were then\ncontending; and, in the next place, might administer to the flesh, of\nitself naturally too torpid to all that is good, a fresh occasion of\nslothfulness. To avoid delivering any principle deemed absurd in the\ncommon opinion of mankind, they made it their study, therefore, to\ncompromise between the doctrine of the Scripture and the dogmas of the\nphilosophers. Yet it appears from their language, that they principally\nregarded the latter consideration, that they might leave no room for\nslothfulness. Chrysostom says, \u201cSince God has placed good and evil things\nin our power, he has given us freedom of choice; and he constrains not the\nunwilling, but embraces the willing.\u201d Again: \u201cOftentimes a bad man, if he\nwill, is changed into a good one; and a good one falls into inactivity,\nand becomes bad; because God has given us naturally a free will, and\nimposes no necessity upon us, but, having provided suitable remedies,\npermits the event to depend entirely on the mind of the patient.\u201d Again:\n\u201cAs without the assistance of Divine grace we can never do any thing\naright, so unless we bring what is our own, we shall never be able to gain\nthe favour of heaven.\u201d He had before said, \u201cThat it may not be entirely of\nthe Divine assistance, it behoves us also to bring something.\u201d And this is\nan expression very familiar with him: \u201cLet us bring what is ours; God will\nsupply the rest.\u201d Agreeably to which Jerome says, \u201cThat it belongs to us\nto begin, and to God to complete; that it is ours to offer what we can,\nbut his to supply our deficiencies.\u201d In these sentences you see they\ncertainly attributed to man more than could justly be attributed to him\ntowards the pursuit of virtue; because they supposed it impossible to\nawaken our innate torpor, otherwise than by arguing that this alone\nconstitutes our guilt; but with what great dexterity they did it, we shall\nsee in the course of our work. That the passages which we have recited are\nexceedingly erroneous, will be shortly proved. Although the Greeks, beyond\nall others, and among them particularly Chrysostom, have exceeded all\nbounds in extolling the ability of the human will, yet such are the\nvariations, fluctuations, or obscurities of all the fathers, except\nAugustine, on this subject, that scarcely any thing certain can be\nconcluded from their writings. Therefore we shall not scrupulously\nenumerate the particular opinions of them all, but shall at times select\nfrom one and another so much as the explication of the argument shall\nappear to require. Succeeding writers, being every one for himself\nambitious of the praise of subtlety in the defence of human nature,\ngradually and successively fell into opinions more and more erroneous;\ntill at length man was commonly supposed to be corrupted only in his\nsensual part, but to have his will in a great measure, and his reason\nentirely, unimpaired. In the mean time, it was proclaimed by every tongue,\nthat the natural talents in men were corrupted, but the supernatural taken\naway\u2014an expression of Augustine, of the import of which scarcely one man\nin a hundred had the slightest idea. For myself, if I meant clearly to\nstate wherein the corruption of nature consists, I could easily content\nmyself with this language. But it is of great importance to examine with\nattention what ability is retained by man in his present state, corrupted\nin all the parts of his nature, and deprived of supernatural gifts. This\nsubject, therefore, has been treated in too philosophical a manner by\nthose who gloried in being the disciples of Christ. For the Latins have\nalways retained the term _free will_, as though man still remained in his\nprimitive integrity. And the Greeks have not been ashamed to use an\nexpression much more arrogant; for they called it \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, denoting\nthat man possesses sovereign power over himself. Since all men, therefore,\neven the vulgar, are tinctured with this principle, that man is endued\nwith free will, and some of those who would be thought intelligent know\nnot how far this freedom extends,\u2014let us first examine the meaning of the\nterm, and then let us describe, according to the simplicity of the\nScripture, the power which man naturally possesses to do either good or\nevil. What _free will_ is, though the expression frequently occurs in all\nwriters, few have defined. Yet Origen appears to have advanced a position\nto which they all assented, when he calls it a power of _reason_ to\ndiscern good and evil, of _will_ to choose either. Nor does Augustine\ndiffer from him, when he teaches that it is a power of reason and will, by\nwhich good is chosen when grace assists; and evil, when grace is wanting.\nBernard, while he affects greater subtlety, has expressed himself with\nmore obscurity: he says, it is a consent on account of the liberty of\nwill, which cannot be lost, and the judgment of reason, which cannot be\navoided. The definition of Anselm is not sufficiently plain, who states it\nto be a power of preserving rectitude for its own sake. Therefore Peter\nLombard and the schoolmen have rather adopted the definition of Augustine,\nbecause it was more explicit, and did not exclude the grace of God,\nwithout which they perceived that the will had no power of itself. But\nthey also make such additions of their own, as they conceived to be either\nbetter, or conducive to further explication. First, they agree that the\nword _arbitrium_, _will_ or _choice_, should rather be referred to reason,\nwhose office it is to discern between good and evil; and that the epithet\n_free_ belongs properly to the faculty of the will, which is capable of\nbeing inclined to either. Wherefore, since liberty belongs properly to the\nwill, Thomas Aquinas says, that it would be a very good definition, if\nfree will were called _an elective power_, which, being composed of\nunderstanding and appetite, inclines rather to appetite. We see where they\nrepresent the power of free will to be placed; that is, in the reason and\nwill. It now remains briefly to inquire how much they attribute\nrespectively to each.\n\nV. Common and external things, which do not pertain to the kingdom of God,\nthey generally consider as subject to the free determination of man; but\ntrue righteousness they refer to the special grace of God and spiritual\nregeneration. With a view to support this notion, the author of the\ntreatise \u201cOn the Vocation of the Gentiles\u201d enumerates three kinds of\nwill\u2014the first a sensitive, the second an animal, and the third a\nspiritual one; the two former of which he states to be freely exercised by\nus, and the last to be the work of the Holy Spirit in us. The truth or\nfalsehood of this shall be discussed in the proper place; for my design at\npresent is briefly to recite the opinions of others, not to refute them.\nHence, when writers treat of free will, their first inquiry respects not\nits ability in civil or external actions, but its power to obey the Divine\nlaw. Though I confess the latter to be the principal question, yet I think\nthe other ought not to be wholly neglected; and for this opinion I hope to\ngive a very good reason. But a distinction has prevailed in the schools,\nwhich enumerates three kinds of liberty\u2014the first, freedom from necessity,\nthe second, freedom from sin, the third, freedom from misery; of which the\nfirst is naturally inherent in man, so that nothing can ever deprive him\nof it: the other two are lost by sin. This distinction I readily admit,\nexcept that it improperly confounds necessity with coaction. And the wide\ndifference between these things, with the necessity of its being\nconsidered, will appear in another place.\n\nVI. This being admitted will place it beyond all doubt, that man is not\npossessed of free will for good works, unless he be assisted by grace, and\nthat special grace which is bestowed on the elect alone in regeneration.\nFor I stop not to notice those fanatics, who pretend that grace is offered\nequally and promiscuously to all. But it does not yet appear, whether he\nis altogether deprived of power to do good, or whether he yet possesses\nsome power, though small and feeble; which of itself can do nothing, but\nby the assistance of grace does also perform its part. Lombard, in order\nto establish this notion, informs us that two sorts of grace are necessary\nto qualify us for the performance of good works. One he calls operative,\nby which we efficaciously will what is good; the other co\u00f6perative, which\nattends as auxiliary to a good will. This division I dislike, because,\nwhile he attributes an efficacious desire of what is good to the grace of\nGod, he insinuates that man has of his own nature antecedent, though\nineffectual, desires after what is good; as Bernard asserts that a good\nwill is the work of God, but yet allows that man is self\u2010impelled to\ndesire such a good will. But this is very remote from the meaning of\nAugustine, from whom, however, Lombard would be thought to have borrowed\nthis division. The second part of it offends me by its ambiguity, which\nhas produced a very erroneous interpretation. For they have supposed that\nwe co\u00f6perate with the second sort of Divine grace, because we have it in\nour power either to frustrate the first sort by rejecting it, or to\nconfirm it by our obedience to it. The author of the treatise \u201cOn the\nVocation of the Gentiles\u201d expresses it thus\u2014that those who have the use of\nreason and judgment are at liberty to depart from grace, that they may be\nrewarded for not having departed, and that what is impossible without the\nco\u00f6peration of the Spirit, may be imputed to their merits, by whose will\nit might have been prevented. These two things I have thought proper to\nnotice as I proceed, that the reader may perceive how much I dissent from\nthe sounder schoolmen. For I differ considerably more from the later\nsophists, as they have departed much further from the judgment of\nantiquity. However, we understand from this division, in what sense they\nhave ascribed free will to man. For Lombard at length pronounces, that we\nare not therefore possessed of free will, because we have an equal power\nto do or to think either good or evil, but only because we are free from\nconstraint. And this liberty is not diminished, although we are corrupt,\nand the slaves of sin, and capable of doing nothing but sin.\n\nVII. Then man will be said to possess free will in this sense, not that he\nhas an equally free election of good and evil, but because he does evil\nvoluntarily, and not by constraint. That, indeed, is very true; but what\nend could it answer to decorate a thing so diminutive with a title so\nsuperb? Egregious liberty indeed, if man be not compelled to serve sin,\nbut yet is such a willing slave, that his will is held in bondage by the\nfetters of sin. I really abominate contentions about words, which disturb\nthe Church without producing any good effect; but I think that we ought\nreligiously to avoid words which signify any absurdity, particularly when\nthey lead to a pernicious error. How few are there, pray, who, when they\nhear free will attributed to man, do not immediately conceive, that he has\nthe sovereignty over his own mind and will, and is able by his innate\npower to incline himself to whatever he pleases? But it will be said, all\ndanger from these expressions will be removed, if the people are carefully\napprized of their signification. But, on the contrary, the human mind is\nnaturally so prone to falsehood, that it will sooner imbibe error from one\nsingle expression, than truth from a prolix oration; of which we have a\nmore certain experiment than could be wished in this very word. For\nneglecting that explanation of the fathers, almost all their successors\nhave been drawn into a fatal self\u2010confidence, by adhering to the original\nand proper signification of the word.\n\nVIII. But if we regard the authority of the fathers\u2014though they have the\nterm continually in their mouths, they at the same time declare with what\nextent of signification they use it. First of all, Augustine, who\nhesitates not to call the will a slave. He expresses his displeasure in\none place against those who deny free will; but he declares the principal\nreason for it, when he says, \u201cOnly let no man dare so to deny the freedom\nof the will, as to desire to excuse sin.\u201d Elsewhere he plainly confesses,\nthat the human will is not free without the Spirit, since it is subject to\nits lusts, by which it is conquered and bound. Again: that when the will\nwas overcome by the sin into which it fell, nature began to be destitute\nof liberty. Again: that man, having made a wrong use of his free will,\nlost both it and himself. Again: that free will is in a state of\ncaptivity, so that it can do nothing towards righteousness. Again: that\nthe will cannot be free, which has not been liberated by Divine grace.\nAgain: that the Divine justice is not fulfilled, while the law commands,\nand man acts from his own strength; but when the Spirit assists, and the\nhuman will obeys, not as being free, but as liberated by God. And he\nbriefly assigns the cause of all this, when, in another place, he tells\nus, that man at his creation received great strength of free will, but\nlost it by sin. Therefore, having shown that free will is the result of\ngrace, he sharply inveighs against those who arrogate it to themselves\nwithout grace. \u201cHow, then,\u201d says he, \u201cdo miserable men dare to be proud of\nfree will, before they are liberated, or of their own strength, if they\nhave been liberated?\u201d Nor do they consider that the term _free will_\nsignifies liberty. But \u201cwhere the Spirit of the Lord is, there is\nliberty.\u201d(560) If, therefore, they are the slaves of sin, why do they\nboast of free will? \u201cFor of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he\nbrought in bondage.\u201d(561) But if they have been liberated, why do they\nboast as of their own work? Are they so much at liberty as to refuse to be\nthe servants of him who says, \u201cWithout me ye can do nothing\u201d?(562)\nBesides, in another place, also, he seems to discountenance the use of\nthat expression, when he says that the will is free, but not liberated;\nfree from righteousness, enslaved to sin. This sentiment he also repeats\nand applies in another place, where he maintains that man is not free from\nrighteousness, but by the choice of his will, and that he is not made free\nfrom sin, but by the grace of the Saviour. He who declares that human\nliberty is nothing but an emancipation or manumission from righteousness,\nevidently exposes it to ridicule as an unmeaning term. Therefore, if any\nman allows himself the use of this term without any erroneous\nsignification, he will not be troubled by me on that account: but because\nI think that it cannot be retained without great danger, and that, on the\ncontrary, its abolition would be very beneficial to the Church, I would\nneither use it myself, nor wish it to be used by others who may consult my\nopinion.\n\nIX. Perhaps I may be thought to have raised a great prejudice against\nmyself, by confessing that all the ecclesiastical writers, except\nAugustine, have treated this subject with such ambiguities or variations,\nthat nothing certain can be learned from their writings. For some will\ninterpret this, as though I intended to deprive them of the right of\ngiving their suffrages, because their opinions are all adverse to mine.\nBut I have had no other object in view than simply and faithfully to\nconsult the benefit of pious minds, who, if they wait to discover the\nsentiments of the fathers on this subject, will fluctuate in perpetual\nuncertainty. At one time they teach man, despoiled of all strength of free\nwill, to have recourse to grace alone; at another, they either furnish, or\nappear to furnish, him with armour naturally his own. Yet that, amidst all\nthis ambiguity of expression, esteeming the strength of man as little or\nnothing, they have ascribed the praise of every thing that is good\nentirely to the Holy Spirit, is not difficult to prove, if I introduce\nsome passages from them, in which this sentiment is clearly maintained.\nFor what is the meaning of that assertion of Cyprian, so frequently\ncelebrated by Augustine, \u201cThat we ought to glory in nothing, because we\nhave nothing of our own;\u201d but that man, completely impoverished in\nhimself, should learn to depend entirely on God? What is the meaning of\nthat observation of Augustine and Eucherius, when they represent Christ as\nthe tree of life, to whom whosoever shall have stretched forth his hand\nshall live; and free will as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and\nsay that whosoever forsakes the grace of God and tastes of it shall die?\nWhat is the meaning of that assertion of Chrysostom, that every man by\nnature is not only a sinner, but altogether sin? If we have not one good\nquality, if from his head to his feet man be entirely sin, if it be wrong\neven to try how far the power of the will extends,\u2014how, then, can it be\nright to divide the praise of a good work between God and man? I could\nintroduce many such passages from other fathers; but lest any one should\ncavil, that I select only those things which favour my own cause, but\nartfully omit those which oppose it, I refrain from such a recital. I\nventure to affirm, however, that though they sometimes too highly extol\nfree will, yet their design was to teach man to discard all reliance on\nhis own power, and to consider all his strength as residing in God alone.\nI now proceed to a simple explication of the truth in considering the\nnature of man.\n\nX. But I am obliged to repeat here, what I premised in the beginning of\nthis chapter\u2014that he who feels the most consternation, from a\nconsciousness of his own calamity, poverty, nakedness, and ignominy, has\nmade the greatest proficiency in the knowledge of himself. For there is no\ndanger that man will divest himself of too much, provided he learns that\nwhat is wanting in him may be recovered in God. But he cannot assume to\nhimself even the least particle beyond his just right, without ruining\nhimself with vain confidence, and incurring the guilt of enormous\nsacrilege, by transferring to himself the honour which belongs to God. And\nwhenever our minds are pestered with this cupidity, to desire to have\nsomething of our own, which may reside in ourselves rather than in God, we\nmay know that this idea is suggested by the same counsellor, who excited\nin our first parents the desire of resembling \u201cgods, knowing good and\nevil.\u201d(563) If that term be diabolical, which exalts man in his own\nopinion, let us not admit it, unless we wish to take the counsel of an\nenemy. It is pleasant, indeed, to have so much innate strength as to\nconfide in and be satisfied with ourselves. But from being allured into\nthis vain confidence, let us be deterred by the many awful sentences which\nseverely humble us to the dust; such as \u201cCursed be the man that trusteth\nin man, and maketh flesh his arm.\u201d(564) Again: \u201cGod delighteth not in the\nstrength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. The\nLord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his\nmercy.\u201d(565) Again: \u201cHe giveth power to the faint; and to them that have\nno might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary,\nand the young men shall utterly fall; but they that wait upon the Lord\nshall renew their strength.\u201d(566) The tendency of all which is to prevent\nus from depending, in the smallest degree, on our own strength, if we wish\nGod to be propitious to us, who \u201cresisteth the proud, but giveth grace\nunto the humble.\u201d(567) Then let us remember these promises; \u201cI will pour\nwater upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground:\u201d(568)\nagain; \u201cHo! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters:\u201d(569) which\ndeclare, that none are admitted to a participation of the blessings of\nGod, but those who are pining away with a sense of their own poverty. Nor\nshould such promises as this of Isaiah be overlooked: \u201cThe sun shall be no\nmore thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light\nunto thee; but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light.\u201d(570) The\nLord certainly does not deprive his servants of the splendour of the sun\nor of the moon; but because he will appear exclusively glorious in them,\nhe calls off their confidence to a great distance, even from those things\nwhich in their opinion are the most excellent.\n\nXI. I have always, indeed, been exceedingly pleased with this observation\nof Chrysostom, that humility is the foundation of our philosophy; but\nstill more with this of Augustine: \u201cAs a rhetorician,\u201d says he, \u201con being\ninterrogated what was the first thing in the rules of eloquence, replied,\n\u2018Pronunciation;\u2019 and on being separately interrogated what was the second,\nand what was the third, gave the same reply; so, should any one\ninterrogate me concerning the rules of the Christian religion, the first,\nsecond, and third, I would always reply, Humility.\u201d Now, he does not\nconsider it as humility, when a man, conscious to himself of some little\npower, abstains from pride and haughtiness; but when he truly feels his\ncondition to be such that he has no refuge but in humility, as he\nelsewhere declares. \u201cLet no man,\u201d says he, \u201cflatter himself: of himself he\nis a devil: every blessing he enjoys is only from God. For what have you\nthat is your own, but sin? Take to yourself sin, which is your own; for\nrighteousness belongs to God.\u201d Again: \u201cWhy do men so presume on the\nability of nature? It is wounded, maimed, distressed, and ruined. It needs\na true confession, not a false defence.\u201d Again: \u201cWhen every one knows,\nthat in himself he is nothing, and that he cannot assist himself, the arms\nare broken within him, and the contentions are subsided.\u201d But it is\nnecessary that all the weapons of impiety should be broken in pieces and\nconsumed, that you may remain unarmed, and have no help in yourself. The\ngreater your weakness is in yourself, so much the more the Lord assists\nyou. So in the seventieth Psalm he forbids us to remember our own\nrighteousness, that we may know the righteousness of God; and shows that\nGod so recommends his grace to us, that we may know that we are nothing,\nand are solely dependent on the Divine mercy, being of ourselves\naltogether evil. Here, then, let us not contend with God concerning our\nright, as though what is attributed to him were deducted from our welfare.\nFor as our humility is his exaltation, so the confession of our humility\nhas an immediate remedy in his commiseration. Now, I do not expect that a\nman unconvinced should voluntarily submit, and, if he has any strength,\nwithdraw his attention from it to be reduced to true humility; but I\nrequire, that, discarding the malady of self\u2010love and love of strife,\nwhich blinds him, and leads him to entertain too high an opinion of\nhimself, he should seriously contemplate himself in the faithful mirror of\nthe Scripture.\n\nXII. And, indeed, I much approve of that common observation which has been\nborrowed from Augustine, that the natural talents in man have been\ncorrupted by sin, but that of the supernatural ones he has been wholly\ndeprived. For by the latter are intended, both the light of faith and\nrighteousness, which would be sufficient for the attainment of a heavenly\nlife and eternal felicity. Therefore, when he revolted from the Divine\ngovernment, he was at the same time deprived of those supernatural\nendowments, which had been given him for the hope of eternal salvation.\nHence it follows, that he is exiled from the kingdom of God, in such a\nmanner, that all the affections relating to the happy life of the soul,\nare also extinguished in him, till he recovers them by the grace of\nregeneration. Such are faith, love to God, charity towards our neighbours,\nand an attachment to holiness and righteousness. All these things, being\nrestored by Christ, are esteemed adventitious and preternatural; and\ntherefore we conclude that they had been lost. Again, soundness of mind\nand rectitude of heart were also destroyed; and this is the corruption of\nthe natural talents. For although we retain some portion of understanding\nand judgment together with the will, yet we cannot say that our mind is\nperfect and sound, which is oppressed with debility and immersed in\nprofound darkness; and the depravity of our will is sufficiently known.\nReason, therefore, by which man distinguishes between good and evil, by\nwhich he understands and judges, being a natural talent, could not be\ntotally destroyed, but is partly debilitated, partly vitiated, so that it\nexhibits nothing but deformity and ruin. In this sense John says, that\n\u201cthe light\u201d still \u201cshineth in darkness,\u201d but that \u201cthe darkness\ncomprehendeth it not.\u201d(571) In this passage both these ideas are clearly\nexpressed\u2014that some sparks continue to shine in the nature of man, even in\nits corrupt and degenerate state, which prove him to be a rational\ncreature, and different from the brutes, because he is endued with\nunderstanding; and yet that this light is smothered by so much ignorance,\nthat it cannot act with any degree of efficacy. So the will, being\ninseparable from the nature of man, is not annihilated; but it is fettered\nby depraved and inordinate desires, so that it cannot aspire after any\nthing that is good. This, indeed, is a complete definition, but requires\nmore diffuse explication. Therefore, that the order of our discourse may\nproceed according to the distinction we have stated, in which we divided\nthe soul into understanding and will, let us first examine the power of\nthe understanding. To condemn it to perpetual blindness, so as to leave it\nno intelligence in any thing, is repugnant, not only to the Divine word,\nbut also to the experience of common sense. For we perceive in the mind of\nman some desire of investigating truth, towards which he would have no\ninclination, but from some relish of it previously possessed. It therefore\nindicates some perspicuity in the human understanding, that it is\nattracted with a love of truth; the neglect of which in the brutes argues\ngross sense without reason; although this desire, small as it is, faints\neven before its entrance on its course, because it immediately terminates\nin vanity. For the dulness of the human mind renders it incapable of\npursuing the right way of investigating the truth; it wanders through a\nvariety of errors, and groping, as it were, in the shades of darkness,\noften stumbles, till at length it is lost in its wanderings; thus, in its\nsearch after truth, it betrays its incapacity to seek and find it. It also\nlabours under another grievous malady, frequently not discerning what\nthose things are, the true knowledge of which it would be proper to\nattain, and therefore torments itself with a ridiculous curiosity in\nfruitless and unimportant inquiries. To things most necessary to be known\nit either never adverts, or contemptuously and rarely digresses; but\nscarcely ever studies them with serious application. This depravity being\na common subject of complaint with heathen writers, all men are clearly\nproved to have been implicated in it. Wherefore Solomon, in his\nEcclesiastes, after having enumerated those pursuits in which men consider\nthemselves as displaying superior wisdom, concludes with pronouncing them\nto be vain and frivolous.\n\nXIII. Yet its attempts are not always so fruitless, but that it makes some\ndiscoveries, particularly when it applies itself to inferior things. Nor\nis it so stupid, as to be without some slender notion also of superior\nones, however negligently it attends to the investigation of them; but it\npossesses not an equal ability for both. For it is when it goes beyond the\nlimits of the present life, that it is chiefly convinced of its own\nimbecility. Wherefore, that we may better perceive how far it proceeds in\nevery case according to the degrees of its ability, it will be useful for\nus to propose the following distinction; that there is one understanding\nfor terrestrial things, and another for celestial ones. I call those\nthings terrestrial which do not pertain to God and his kingdom, to true\nrighteousness, or to the blessedness of a future life; but which relate\nentirely to the present life, and are in some sense confined within the\nlimits of it. Celestial things are the pure knowledge of God, the method\nof true righteousness, and the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom. In the\nfirst class are included civil polity, domestic economy, all the\nmechanical arts and liberal sciences; in the second, the knowledge of God\nand of the Divine will, and the rule for conformity to it in our lives.\nNow, in regard to the first class, it must be confessed, that as man is\nnaturally a creature inclined to society, he has also by nature an\ninstinctive propensity to cherish and preserve that society; and therefore\nwe perceive in the minds of all men general impressions of civil probity\nand order. Hence it is that not a person can be found who does not\nunderstand, that all associations of men ought to be governed by laws, or\nwho does not conceive in his mind the principles of those laws. Hence that\nperpetual consent of all nations, as well as all individuals, to the laws,\nbecause the seeds of them are innate in all mankind, without any\ninstructor or legislator. I regard not the dissensions and contests which\nafterwards arise, while some desire to invert all justice and propriety,\nto break down the barriers of the laws, and to substitute mere cupidity in\nthe room of justice, as is the case with thieves and robbers. Others\u2014which\nis a fault more common\u2014think that unjust which legislators have sanctioned\nas just; and, on the contrary, pronounce that to be laudable which they\nhave forbidden. For the former of these hate not the laws from an\nignorance that they are good and sacred; but, inflamed with the violence\nof their passions, manifestly contend against reason, and under the\ninfluence of their lawless desires, execrate that which their judgments\napprove. The controversy of the latter of these is by no means repugnant\nto that original idea of equity which we have mentioned; for when men\ndispute with each other on the comparative merits of different laws, it\nimplies their consent to some general rule of equity. This clearly argues\nthe debility of the human mind, which halts and staggers even when it\nappears to follow the right way. Yet it is certainly true, that some seeds\nof political order are sown in the minds of all. And this is a powerful\nargument, that in the constitution of this life no man is destitute of the\nlight of reason.\n\nXIV. Next follow the arts, both liberal and manual; for learning which, as\nthere is in all of us a certain aptitude, they also discover the strength\nof human ingenuity. But though all men are not capable of learning every\nart, yet it is a very sufficient proof of the common energy, that scarcely\nan individual can be found, whose sagacity does not exert itself in some\nparticular art. Nor have they an energy and facility only in learning, but\nalso in inventing something new in every art, or in amplifying and\nimproving what they have learned from their predecessors. Though this\nexcited Plato erroneously to assert that such an apprehension is only a\nrecollection of what the soul knew in its pre\u00ebxistent state, before it\ncame into the body, it constrains us, by the most cogent reasons, to\nacknowledge that the principle of it is innate in the human mind. These\ninstances, therefore, plainly prove, that men are endued with a general\napprehension of reason and understanding. Yet it is such a universal\nblessing, that every one for himself ought to acknowledge it as the\npeculiar favour of God. To this gratitude the Author of nature himself\nabundantly excites us, by his creation of idiots, in whom he represents\nthe state of the human soul without his illumination, which, though\nnatural to all, is nevertheless a gratuitous gift of his beneficence\ntowards every individual. But the invention and methodical teaching of\nthese arts, and the more intimate and excellent knowledge of them, which\nis peculiar to a few, are no solid argument of general perspicacity; yet,\nbelonging to both the pious and the impious, they are justly numbered\namong the natural talents.\n\nXV. Whenever, therefore, we meet with heathen writers, let us learn from\nthat light of truth which is admirably displayed in their works, that the\nhuman mind, fallen as it is, and corrupted from its integrity, is yet\ninvested and adorned by God with excellent talents. If we believe that the\nSpirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we shall neither reject nor\ndespise the truth itself, wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to\ninsult the Spirit of God; for the gifts of the Spirit cannot be\nundervalued without offering contempt and reproach to the Spirit himself.\nNow, shall we deny the light of truth to the ancient lawyers, who have\ndelivered such just principles of civil order and polity? Shall we say\nthat the philosophers were blind in their exquisite contemplation and in\ntheir scientific description of nature? Shall we say that those, who by\nthe art of logic have taught us to speak in a manner consistent with\nreason, were destitute of understanding themselves? Shall we accuse those\nof insanity, who by the study of medicine have been exercising their\nindustry for our advantage? What shall we say of all the mathematics?\nShall we esteem them the delirious ravings of madmen? On the contrary, we\nshall not be able even to read the writings of the ancients on these\nsubjects without great admiration; we shall admire them, because we shall\nbe constrained to acknowledge them to be truly excellent. And shall we\nesteem any thing laudable or excellent, which we do not recognize as\nproceeding from God? Let us, then, be ashamed of such great ingratitude,\nwhich was not to be charged on the heathen poets, who confessed that\nphilosophy, and legislation, and useful arts, were the inventions of their\ngods. Therefore, since it appears that those whom the Scripture styles\n\u201cnatural men,\u201d \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, have discovered such acuteness and perspicacity\nin the investigation of sublunary things, let us learn from such examples,\nhow many good qualities the Lord has left to the nature of man, since it\nhas been despoiled of what is truly good.\n\nXVI. Yet let us not forget that these are most excellent gifts of the\nDivine Spirit, which for the common benefit of mankind he dispenses to\nwhomsoever he pleases. For if it was necessary that the Spirit of God\nshould infuse into Bezaleel and Aholiab the understanding and skill\nrequisite for the construction of the tabernacle,(572) we need not wonder\nif the knowledge of those things, which are most excellent in human life,\nis said to be communicated to us by the Spirit of God. Nor is there any\nreason for inquiring, what intercourse with the Spirit is enjoyed by the\nimpious who are entirely alienated from God. For when the Spirit of God is\nsaid to dwell only in the faithful, that is to be understood of the Spirit\nof sanctification, by whom we are consecrated as temples to God himself.\nYet it is equally by the energy of the same Spirit, that God replenishes,\nactuates, and quickens all creatures, and that, according to the property\nof each species which he has given it by the law of creation. Now, if it\nhas pleased the Lord that we should be assisted in physics, logic,\nmathematics, and other arts and sciences, by the labour and ministry of\nthe impious, let us make use of them; lest, if we neglect to use the\nblessings therein freely offered to us by God, we suffer the just\npunishment of our negligence. But, lest any one should suppose a man to be\ntruly happy, when he is admitted to possess such powerful energies for the\ndiscovery of truth relating to the elements of this world, it must\nlikewise be added, that all that faculty of understanding, and the\nunderstanding which is the consequence of it, is, in the sight of God, a\nfleeting and transitory thing, where there is not a solid foundation of\ntruth. For the sentiment of Augustine, with whom, as we have observed, the\nMaster of the Sentences and the Schoolmen have been constrained to\ncoincide, is strictly true\u2014that as the gratuitous or supernatural gifts\nwere taken away from man after the fall, so these natural ones which\nremained have been corrupted; not that they can be defiled in themselves\nas proceeding from God, but because they have ceased to be pure to\npolluted man, so that he can obtain no praise from them.\n\nXVII. Let us conclude, therefore, that it is evident in all mankind, that\nreason is a peculiar property of our nature, which distinguishes us from\nthe brute animals, as sense constitutes the difference between them and\nthings inanimate. For whereas some are born fools and idiots, that defect\nobscures not the general goodness of God. Such a spectacle should rather\nteach us that what we retain ought justly to be ascribed to his\nindulgence; because, had it not been for his mercy to us, our defection\nwould have been followed by the total destruction of our nature. But\nwhereas some excel in penetration, others possess superior judgment, and\nothers have a greater aptitude to learn this or that art, in this variety\nGod displays his goodness to us, that no one may arrogate to himself as\nhis own what proceeds merely from the Divine liberality. For whence is it\nthat one is more excellent than another, unless it be to exalt in our\ncommon nature the special goodness of God, which in the preterition of\nmany, proclaims that it is under an obligation to none? Moreover, God\ninspires particular motions according to the vocation of each individual;\nof which many examples occur in the book of the Judges, where the Spirit\nof the Lord is said to \u201ccome upon\u201d those whom he called to govern the\npeople.(573) Finally, in all important actions there is a special\ninstinct; for which reason it is said that Saul was followed by valiant\nmen, \u201cwhose hearts God had touched.\u201d(574) And Samuel, when he predicts his\ninauguration into the kingdom, thus expresses himself: \u201cThe Spirit of the\nLord will come upon thee, and thou shalt be turned into another man.\u201d(575)\nAnd this is extended to the whole course of his government; as it is\nafterwards narrated concerning David, that \u201cthe Spirit of the Lord came\nupon him from that day forward.\u201d(576) But the same expression is used in\nother places in reference to particular impulses. Even in Homer, men are\nsaid to excel in abilities, not only as Jupiter has distributed to every\none, but according as he guides him from day to day. And experience\nclearly shows, since the most ingenious and sagacious of mankind\nfrequently stand still in profound astonishment, that the minds of men are\nsubject to the power and will of God to govern them every moment; for\nwhich reason it is said, that \u201che taketh away the heart of the chief\npeople of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where\nthere is no way.\u201d(577) Yet in this diversity we perceive some remaining\nmarks of the Divine image, which distinguish the human race in general\nfrom all the other creatures.\n\nXVIII. We now proceed to show what human reason can discover, when it\ncomes to the kingdom of God, and to that spiritual wisdom, which consists\nchiefly in three things\u2014to know God, his paternal favour towards us, on\nwhich depends our salvation, and the method of regulating our lives\naccording to the rule of the law. In the two first points, but especially\nin the second, the most sagacious of mankind are blinder than moles. I do\nnot deny that some judicious and apposite observations concerning God may\nbe found scattered in the writings of the philosophers; but they always\nbetray a confused imagination. The Lord afforded them, as we have before\nobserved, some slight sense of his Divinity, that they might not be able\nto plead ignorance as an excuse for impiety, and sometimes impelled them\nto utter things, by the confession of which they might themselves be\nconvinced. But they saw the objects presented to their view in such a\nmanner, that by the sight they were not even directed to the truth, much\nless did they arrive at it; just as a man, who is travelling by night\nacross a field, sees the coruscations of lightning extending for a moment\nfar and wide, but with such an evanescent view, that so far from being\nassisted by them in proceeding on his journey, he is re\u2010absorbed in the\ndarkness of the night before he can advance a single step. Besides, those\nfew truths, with which they, as it were, fortuitously besprinkle their\nbooks, with what numerous and monstrous falsehoods are they defiled!\nLastly, they never had the smallest idea of that certainty of the Divine\nbenevolence towards us, without which the human understanding must\nnecessarily be full of immense confusion. Human reason, then, neither\napproaches, nor tends, nor directs its views towards this truth, to\nunderstand who is the true God, or in what character he will manifest\nhimself to us.\n\nXIX. But because, from our being intoxicated with a false opinion of our\nown perspicacity, we do not without great difficulty suffer ourselves to\nbe persuaded, that in Divine things our reason is totally blind and\nstupid, it will be better, I think, to confirm it by testimonies of\nScripture, than to support it by arguments. This is beautifully taught by\nJohn, in that passage which I lately cited, where he says that, from the\nbeginning, \u201cin God was life, and the life was the light of men. And the\nlight shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.\u201d(578) He\nindicates, indeed, that the soul of man is irradiated with a beam of\nDivine light, so that it is never wholly destitute either of some little\nflame, or at least of a spark of it; but he likewise suggests that it\ncannot comprehend God by that illumination. And this because all his\nsagacity, as far as respects the knowledge of God, is mere blindness. For\nwhen the Spirit calls men \u201cdarkness,\u201d he at once totally despoils them of\nthe faculty of spiritual understanding. Wherefore he asserts that\nbelievers, who receive Christ, are \u201cborn not of blood, nor of the will of\nthe flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;\u201d(579) as though he had said\nthat the flesh is not capable of such sublime wisdom as to conceive of God\nand Divine things, without being illuminated by the Spirit of God; as\nChrist testified that his being known by Peter was owing to a special\nrevelation of the Father.(580)\n\nXX. If we were firmly persuaded of what, indeed, ought not to be\nquestioned, that our nature is destitute of all those things which our\nheavenly Father confers on his elect through the Spirit of regeneration,\nhere would be no cause of hesitation. For this is the language of the\nfaithful by the mouth of the Prophet: \u201cWith thee is the fountain of life;\nin thy light we shall see light.\u201d(581) The Apostle confirms the same, when\nhe says that \u201cno man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy\nGhost.\u201d(582) And John the Baptist, perceiving the stupidity of his\ndisciples, exclaims, that \u201ca man can receive nothing except it be given\nhim from above.\u201d(583) That by \u201cgift\u201d he intends a special illumination,\nnot a common faculty of nature, is evident from the complaint which he\nmakes of the inefficacy of the many discourses in which he had recommended\nChrist to his disciples. \u201cI see that words are unavailing to instruct the\nminds of men in Divine things, unless God give them understanding by his\nSpirit.\u201d And Moses also, when he reproaches the people for their\nforgetfulness, yet at the same time remarks, that they cannot be wise in\nthe mysteries of God but by the Divine favour. He says, \u201cThine eyes have\nseen the signs and those great miracles; yet the Lord hath not given you a\nheart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear.\u201d(584) What more\nwould he express, if he had called them blockheads, destitute of all\nunderstanding in the consideration of the works of God? Whence the Lord,\nby the Prophet, promises, as an instance of peculiar grace, that he will\ngive the Israelites \u201ca heart to know\u201d him;(585) plainly suggesting that\nthe mind of man has no spiritual wisdom any further than as it is\nenlightened by him. Christ also has clearly confirmed this by his own\ndeclaration, that no man can come to him, except the Father draw him.(586)\nWhat! is he not himself the lively image of the Father, representing to us\nall \u201cthe brightness of his glory\u201d?(587) Therefore, he could not better\nmanifest the extent of our capacity for the knowledge of God, than when he\naffirms that we have no eyes to behold his image where it is so plainly\nexhibited. What! did he not descend to the earth in order to discover to\nmen the will of the Father? And did he not faithfully fulfil the object of\nhis mission? He certainly did; but his preaching is not at all\nefficacious, unless the way to the heart be laid open by the internal\nteaching of the Spirit. Therefore, none come to him but they who have\nheard and learned of the Father. What is the nature of this hearing and\nlearning? It is when the Spirit, by a wonderful and peculiar power, forms\nthe ears to hear and the mind to understand. And lest this should appear\nstrange, he cites the prophecy of Isaiah, where, predicting the\nrestoration of the Church, he says, that all those who shall be saved\n\u201cshall be taught of the Lord.\u201d If God there predicts something peculiar\nconcerning his elect, it is evident that he speaks not of that kind of\ninstruction which is common also to the impious and profane. It must be\nconcluded, therefore, that there is no admission into the kingdom of God,\nbut for him whose mind has been renewed by the illumination of the Holy\nSpirit. But Paul expresses himself more clearly than all the others.\nHaving professedly entered upon this argument, after he has condemned all\nhuman wisdom as folly and vanity, and even reduced it to nothing, he comes\nto this conclusion: \u201cThe natural man receiveth not the things of the\nSpirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know\nthem, because they are spiritually discerned.\u201d(588) Whom does he call the\nnatural man? him who depends on the light of nature. He, I say, has no\napprehension of the mysteries of God. Why so? because through slothfulness\nhe neglects them? Nay, even his utmost endeavours can avail nothing,\n\u201cbecause they are spiritually discerned.\u201d This implies, that being\nentirely concealed from human perspicacity, they are discovered only by\nthe revelation of the Spirit; so that where the illumination of the Spirit\nis not enjoyed, they are deemed foolishness itself. He had before extolled\n\u201cthe things which God hath prepared for them that love him\u201d(589) above the\ncapacity of our eyes, our ears, and our minds; he had even asserted that\nhuman wisdom was a kind of veil, by which the mind is prevented from a\ndiscovery of God. What do we want more? The Apostle pronounces that \u201cGod\nhath made foolish the wisdom of this world;\u201d(590) and shall we ascribe to\nit such a degree of sagacity, as would enable it to penetrate to God, and\nto the most secret recesses of the heavenly kingdom? Far be from us such\nextreme stupidity.\n\nXXI. That which he here detracts from men, he in another place ascribes\nexclusively to God. Praying for the Ephesians, he says, \u201cMay God, the\nFather of glory, give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.\u201d(591)\nYou hear now that all wisdom and revelation is the gift of God. What\nfollows? \u201cThe eyes of your understanding being enlightened.\u201d If they need\na new revelation, they are certainly blind of themselves. It follows,\n\u201cthat ye may know what is the hope of your calling,\u201d &c. He confesses,\nthen, that the minds of men are not naturally capable of so great\nknowledge, as to know their own calling. Nor let any Pelagian here object,\nthat God assists this stupidity or ignorance, when, by the teaching of his\nword, he directs the human understanding to that which, without a guide,\nit never could have attained. For David had the law, in which all\ndesirable wisdom was comprised: yet, not content with this, he requested\nthat his eyes might be opened to consider the mysteries of that law.(592)\nBy this expression he clearly signifies, that the sun arises on the earth,\nwhere the word of God shines on mankind; but that they derive little\nadvantage from it, till he himself either gives them eyes or opens them,\nwho is therefore called \u201cthe Father of lights;\u201d(593) because wherever he\nshines not by his Spirit, every thing is covered with darkness. Thus also\nthe Apostles were rightly and abundantly taught by the best of all\nteachers: yet, if they had not needed the Spirit of truth(594) to instruct\ntheir minds in that very doctrine which they had previously heard, they\nwould not have been commanded to expect him. If, in imploring any favour\nof God, we confess our need, and if his promising it argues our poverty,\nlet no man hesitate to acknowledge, that he is incapable of understanding\nthe mysteries of God, any further than he has been illuminated by Divine\ngrace. He who attributes to himself more understanding, is so much the\nblinder, because he does not perceive and acknowledge his blindness.\n\nXXII. It remains for us to notice the third branch of knowledge, relating\nto the rule for the proper regulation of our life, which we truly\ndenominate the knowledge of works of righteousness; in which the human\nmind discovers somewhat more acuteness than in the two former particulars.\nFor the Apostle declares, that \u201cwhen the Gentiles, which have not the law,\ndo by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law,\nare a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their\nhearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean\nwhile accusing or else excusing one another.\u201d(595) If the Gentiles have\nnaturally the righteousness of the law engraven on their minds, we\ncertainly cannot say that they are altogether ignorant how they ought to\nlive. And no sentiment is more commonly admitted, than that man is\nsufficiently instructed in a right rule of life by that natural law of\nwhich the Apostle there speaks. But let us examine for what purpose this\nknowledge of the law was given to men; and then it will appear how far it\ncan conduct them towards the mark of reason and truth. This is evident\nalso from the words of Paul, if we observe the connection of the passage.\nHe had just before said, \u201cAs many as have sinned without law, shall also\nperish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged\nby the law.\u201d Because it might appear absurd that the Gentiles should\nperish without any previous knowledge, he immediately subjoins that their\nconscience supplies the place of a law to them, and is therefore\nsufficient for their just condemnation. The end of the law of nature,\ntherefore, is, that man may be rendered inexcusable. Nor will it be\nimproperly defined in this manner\u2014That it is a sentiment of the conscience\nsufficiently discerning between good and evil, to deprive men of the\npretext of ignorance, while they are convicted even by their own\ntestimony. Such is the indulgence of man to himself, that in the\nperpetration of evil actions he always gladly diverts his mind as much as\nhe possibly can from all sense of sin; which seems to have induced Plato\nto suppose, that no sin is committed but through ignorance. This remark of\nhis would be correct, if the hypocrisy of men could go so far in the\nconcealment of their vices, as that the mind would have no consciousness\nof its guilt before God. But since the sinner, though he endeavours to\nevade the knowledge of good and evil imprinted on his mind, is frequently\nbrought back to it, and so is not permitted to shut his eyes, but\ncompelled, whether he will or not, sometimes to open them, there is no\ntruth in the assertion, that he sins only through ignorance.\n\nXXIII. Themistius, another philosopher, with more truth, teaches that the\nhuman understanding is very rarely deceived in the universal definition,\nor in the essence of a thing; but that it falls into error, when it\nproceeds further, and descends to the consideration of particular cases.\nThere is no man, who, if he be interrogated in a general way, will not\naffirm homicide to be criminal; but he who conspires the death of his\nenemy, deliberates on it as a good action. The adulterer will condemn\nadultery in general; but will privately flatter himself in his own. Here\nlies the ignorance\u2014when a man, proceeding to a particular case, forgets\nthe rule which he had just fixed as a general position. This subject is\nvery excellently treated by Augustine, in his exposition of the first\nverse of the fifty\u2010seventh Psalm. The observation of Themistius, however,\nis not applicable to all cases; for sometimes the turpitude of the crime\nso oppresses the conscience of the sinner, that, no longer imposing on\nhimself under the false image of virtue, he rushes into evil with the\nknowledge of his mind and the consent of his will. This state of mind\nproduced these expressions, which we find in a heathen poet: \u201cI see the\nbetter path, and approve it; I pursue the worse.\u201d Wherefore the\ndistinction of Aristotle between incontinence and intemperance appears to\nme to be highly judicious. Where incontinence predominates, he says, that\nby the perturbation of the affections or passions, the mind is deprived of\nparticular knowledge, so that in its own evil actions it observes not that\ncriminality which it generally discovers in similar actions committed by\nother persons; and that when the perturbation has subsided, penitence\nimmediately succeeds; that intemperance is not extinguished or broken by a\nsense of sin, but, on the contrary, obstinately persists in the choice of\nevil which it has made.\n\nXXIV. Now, when you hear of a universal judgment in man to discriminate\nbetween good and evil, you must not imagine that it is every where sound\nand perfect. For if the hearts of men be furnished with a capacity of\ndiscriminating what is just and unjust, only that they may not excuse\nthemselves with the plea of ignorance, it is not at all necessary for them\nto discover the truth in every point; it is quite sufficient if they\nunderstand so much that they can avail themselves of no subterfuge, but\nbeing convicted by the testimony of their own conscience, even now begin\nto tremble at the tribunal of God. And if we will examine our reason by\nthe Divine law, which is the rule of perfect righteousness, we shall find\nin how many respects it is blind. It certainly is far from reaching the\nprincipal points in the first table; such as relate to trust in God,\nascribing to him the praise of goodness and righteousness, the invocation\nof his name, and the true observation of the Sabbath. What mind, relying\non its natural powers, ever imagined that the legitimate worship of God\nconsisted in these and similar things? For when profane men intend to\nworship God, though they are recalled a hundred times from their vain and\nnugatory fancies, yet they are always relapsing into them again. They deny\nthat sacrifices are pleasing to God, unaccompanied with sincerity of\nheart; thereby testifying that they have some ideas concerning the\nspiritual worship of God, which, nevertheless, they immediately corrupt by\ntheir false inventions. For it is impossible ever to persuade them that\nevery thing is true which the law prescribes concerning it. Shall I say\nthat the mind of man excels in discernment, which can neither understand\nof itself, nor hearken to good instructions? Of the precepts of the second\ntable it has a little clearer understanding, since they are more\nintimately connected with the preservation of civil society among men.\nThough even here it is sometimes found to be deficient; for to every noble\nmind it appears very absurd to submit to an unjust and imperious\ndespotism, if it be possible by any means to resist it. A uniform decision\nof human reason is, that it is the mark of a servile and abject\ndisposition patiently to bear it, and of an honest and ingenuous mind to\nshake it off. Nor is the revenging of injuries esteemed a vice among the\nphilosophers. But the Lord, condemning such excessive haughtiness of mind,\nprescribes to his people that patience which is deemed dishonourable among\nmen. But in the universal observation of the law, the censure of\nconcupiscence wholly escapes our notice. For the natural man cannot be\nbrought to acknowledge the disorders of his inward affections. The light\nof nature is smothered, before it approaches the first entrance of this\nabyss. For when the philosophers represent the inordinate affections of\nthe mind as vices, they intend those which appear and manifest themselves\nin the grosser external actions; but those corrupt desires which more\nsecretly stimulate the mind, they consider as nothing.\n\nXXV. Wherefore, as Plato has before been deservedly censured for imputing\nall sins to ignorance, so also we must reject the opinion of those who\nmaintain that all sins proceed from deliberate malice and pravity. For we\ntoo much experience how frequently we fall into error even when our\nintention is good. Our reason is overwhelmed with deceptions in so many\nforms, is obnoxious to so many errors, stumbles at so many impediments,\nand is embarrassed in so many difficulties, that it is very far from being\na certain guide. Paul shows its deficiency in the sight of the Lord in\nevery part of our life, when he denies \u201cthat we are sufficient of\nourselves to think any thing as of ourselves.\u201d(596) He does not speak of\nthe will or of the affections, but he also divests us of every good\nthought, that we may not suppose it possible for our minds to conceive how\nany action may be rightly performed. Are all our industry, perspicacity,\nunderstanding, and care so depraved, that we cannot conceive or meditate\nany thing that is right in the sight of God? To us, who do not contentedly\nsubmit to be stripped of the acuteness of our reason, which we esteem our\nmost valuable endowment, this appears too harsh; but in the estimation of\nthe Holy Spirit, who knows that all the thoughts of the wisest of men are\nvain,(597) and who plainly pronounces every imagination of the human heart\nto be only evil,(598) such a representation is consistent with the\nstrictest truth. If whatever our mind conceives, agitates, undertakes, and\nperforms, be invariably evil, how can we entertain a thought of\nundertaking any thing acceptable to God, by whom nothing is accepted but\nholiness and righteousness? Thus it is evident that the reason of our\nmind, whithersoever it turns, is unhappily obnoxious to vanity. David was\nconscious to himself of this imbecility, when he prayed that understanding\nmight be given him, to enable him rightly to learn the commandments of the\nLord.(599) For his desire to obtain a new understanding implies the total\ninsufficiency of his own. And this he does not once, but almost ten times\nin one Psalm he repeats the same petition\u2014a repetition indicating the\ngreatness of the necessity which urges him thus to pray. What David\nrequests for himself alone, Paul frequently supplicates for the churches\nat large. \u201cWe do not cease to pray for you,\u201d says he, \u201cand to desire, that\nye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and\nspiritual understanding; that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all\npleasing.\u201d(600) Whenever he represents that as a blessing of God, we\nshould remember that he thereby testifies it to be placed beyond the\nability of man. Augustine so far acknowledges this defect of reason in\nunderstanding the things of God, that he thinks the grace of illumination\nno less necessary to our minds than the light of the sun to our eyes. And\nnot content with this, he subjoins the following correction\u2014that we\nourselves open our eyes to behold the light, but that the eyes of our\nminds remain shut, unless they are opened by the Lord. Nor does the\nScripture teach us that our minds are illuminated only on one day, so as\nto enable them to see afterwards without further assistance; for the\npassage just quoted from Paul(601) relates to continual advances and\nimprovements. And this is clearly expressed by David in these words: \u201cWith\nmy whole heart have I sought thee; O let me not wander from thy\ncommandments.\u201d For after having been regenerated, and made a more than\ncommon progress in true piety, he still confesses his need of perpetual\ndirection every moment, lest he should decline from that knowledge which\nhe possessed. Therefore, in another place, he prays for the renewal of a\nright spirit, which he had lost by his sin;(602) because it belongs to the\nsame God to restore that which he originally bestowed, but of which we\nhave been for a time deprived.\n\nXXVI. We must now proceed to the examination of the will, to which\nprincipally belongs the liberty of choice; for we have before seen that\nelection belongs rather to the will than to the understanding. In the\nfirst place, that the opinion advanced by philosophers, and received by\ngeneral consent, that all things, by a natural instinct, desire what is\ngood, may not be supposed to prove the rectitude of the human will, let us\nobserve, that the power of free choice is not to be contemplated in that\nkind of appetite, which proceeds rather from the inclination of the nature\nthan from the deliberation of the mind. For even the schoolmen confess\nthat there is no action of free choice, but when reason sees and considers\nthe rival objects presented to it; meaning that the object of appetite\nmust be such as is the subject of choice, and that deliberation precedes\nand introduces choice. And in fact, if you examine the desire of good\nwhich is natural to man, you will find that he has it in common with the\nbrutes. For they also desire to be happy, and pursue every agreeable\nappearance which attracts their senses. But man neither rationally chooses\nas the object of his pursuit that which is truly good for him, according\nto the excellency of his immortal nature, nor takes the advice of reason,\nnor duly exerts his understanding; but without reason, without reflection,\nfollows his natural inclination, like the herds of the field. It is\ntherefore no argument for the liberty of the will, that man is led by\nnatural instinct to desire that which is good; but it is necessary that he\ndiscern what is good according to right reason; that as soon as he knows\nit, he choose it; and as soon as he has chosen it, he pursue it. To remove\nevery difficulty, we must advert to two instances of false argumentation.\nFor the desire here intended is not a proper motion of the will, but a\nnatural inclination; and the good in question relates not to virtue or\nrighteousness, but to condition; as when we say a man is well or in good\nhealth. Lastly, though man has the strongest desire after what is good,\nyet he does not pursue it. There is no man to whom eternal felicity is\nunwelcome, yet no man aspires to it without the influence of the Spirit.\nSince, therefore, the desire of happiness natural to man furnishes no\nargument for the liberty of the will, any more than a tendency in metals\nand stones towards the perfection of their nature argues liberty in them,\nlet us consider, in some other particulars, whether the will be in every\npart so entirely vitiated and depraved that it can produce nothing but\nwhat is evil; or whether it retain any small part uninjured which may be\nthe source of good desires.\n\nXXVII. Those who attribute it to the first grace of God, that we are able\nto will effectually, seem, on the contrary, to imply that the soul has a\nfaculty of spontaneously aspiring to what is good, but that it is too weak\nto rise into a solid affection, or to excite any endeavour. And there is\nno doubt that the schoolmen have in general embraced this opinion, which\nwas borrowed from Origen and some of the fathers, since they frequently\nconsider man in things purely natural, as they express themselves,\naccording to the description given by the Apostle in these words: \u201cThe\ngood that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. To\nwill is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find\nnot.\u201d(603) But this is a miserable and complete perversion of the argument\nwhich Paul is pursuing in that passage. For he is treating of the\nChristian conflict, which he more briefly hints at to the Galatians; the\nconflict which the faithful perpetually experience within themselves in\nthe contention between the flesh and the spirit. Now, the spirit is not\nfrom nature, but from regeneration. But that the Apostle speaks concerning\nthe regenerate, is evident from his assertion, that in himself dwelt\nnothing good, being immediately followed by an explanation that he meant\nit of his flesh. And therefore he affirms that it is not he that does\nevil, but sin that dwells in him. What is the meaning of this correction,\n\u201cin me, that is, in my flesh?\u201d It is as if he had expressed himself in the\nfollowing manner: No good resides in me originating from myself, for in my\nflesh can be found nothing that is good. Hence follows that form of\nexculpation: \u201cI do no evil, but sin that dwelleth in me;\u201d(604) which is\ninapplicable to any but the regenerate, who, with the prevailing bias of\ntheir souls, aim at what is good. Now, the conclusion which is subjoined\nplaces all this in a clear point of view: \u201cI delight,\u201d says he, \u201cin the\nlaw of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members,\nwarring against the law of my mind.\u201d(605) Who has such a dissension in\nhimself, but he who, being regenerated by the Divine Spirit, carries about\nwith him the relics of his flesh? Therefore Augustine, though he had at\none time supposed that discourse to relate to the natural state of man,\nretracted his interpretation, as false and inconsistent. And, indeed, if\nwe allow that men destitute of grace have some motions towards true\ngoodness, though ever so feeble, what answer shall we give to the Apostle,\nwho denies that we are sufficient of ourselves to entertain even a good\nthought?(606) What reply shall we make to the Lord, who pronounces, by the\nmouth of Moses, that every imagination of the human heart is only\nevil?(607) Since they have stumbled on a false interpretation of one\npassage, therefore, there is no reason why we should dwell on their\nopinion. Rather let us receive this declaration of Christ, \u201cWhosoever\ncommitteth sin is the servant of sin.\u201d(608) We are all sinners by nature;\ntherefore we are all held under the yoke of sin. Now, if the whole man be\nsubject to the dominion of sin, the will, which is the principal seat of\nit, must necessarily be bound with the firmest bonds. Nor would there\notherwise be any consistency in the assertion of Paul, \u201cthat it is God\nthat worketh in us to will,\u201d(609) if any will preceded the grace of the\nSpirit. Farewell, then, all the idle observations of many writers\nconcerning preparation; for although the faithful sometimes petition that\ntheir hearts may be conformed to the Divine law, as David does in many\nplaces,(610) yet it should be remarked that even this desire of praying\noriginates from God. This we may gather from the language of David; for\nwhen he wishes a clean heart to be created within him,(611) he certainly\ndoes not arrogate to himself the beginning of such a creation. Let us\nrather, therefore, attend to this advice of Augustine: \u201cGod will prevent\nyou in all things: do you also sometimes prevent his wrath.\u201d How? \u201cConfess\nthat you have all those things from God; that whatever good you have, it\nis from him; but whatever evil, from yourself.\u201d And a little after,\n\u201cNothing is ours, but sin.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. Every Thing That Proceeds From The Corrupt Nature Of Man\nWorthy Of Condemnation.\n\n\nBut man cannot be better known in either faculty of his soul, than when he\nis represented in those characters by which the Scripture has\ndistinguished him. If he be completely described in these words of Christ,\n\u201cThat which is born of the flesh is flesh,\u201d(612) as it is easy to prove,\nit is evident that he is a very miserable creature. For, according to the\ntestimony of the Apostle, \u201cto be carnally minded is death, because the\ncarnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of\nGod, neither indeed can be.\u201d(613) Is the flesh so perverse, that, with all\nits affections, it entertains a secret hatred against God? that it cannot\nconsent to the righteousness of the Divine law? in a word, that it can\nproduce nothing but what tends to death? Now, grant, that in the nature of\nman there is nothing but flesh, and elicit any good from it, if you can.\nBut the name of flesh, it will be said, pertains only to the sensual, and\nnot to the superior faculties of the soul. This is abundantly refuted by\nthe words of Christ and of the Apostle. For the argument of our Lord is,\nthat man must be born again, because he is flesh. He does not teach a new\nbirth in regard to the body. Now, a new birth of the soul requires not a\ncorrection of some portion of it, but an entire renovation. And this is\nconfirmed by the antithesis in both places; for there is such a comparison\nbetween the flesh and the spirit, that there is no medium left. Therefore,\nevery thing in man that is not spiritual, is, according to this mode of\nreasoning, denominated carnal. But we have nothing of the spirit, except\nby regeneration. Whatever, therefore, we have from nature is carnal. But\nif on that point there could otherwise be any doubt, we have it removed by\nPaul, when, after a description of the old man, which he had asserted to\nbe \u201ccorrupt according to the deceitful lusts,\u201d(614) he directs us to \u201cbe\nrenewed in the spirit of our mind.\u201d You see that he places unlawful and\ncorrupt affections not only in the sensitive part, but also in the mind\nitself, and, therefore, requires a renovation of it. And, indeed, he had\njust before drawn such a picture of human nature, as showed us to be in\nevery part corrupted and depraved. For his description of all the\nGentiles, as \u201cwalking in the vanity of their mind, having the\nunderstanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the\nignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart,\u201d(615)\nis undoubtedly applicable to all those whom the Lord has not yet renewed\nto the rectitude of his wisdom and righteousness. This is still more\nevident from the comparison soon after introduced, where he reminds the\nfaithful, that they \u201chave not so learned Christ.\u201d For from these words we\nconclude, that the grace of Christ is the only remedy, by which we can be\nliberated from that blindness, and from the evils consequent upon it. And\nthis is what Isaiah had prophesied concerning the kingdom of Christ, when\nhe predicted that the Lord would be \u201can everlasting light\u201d to his Church,\nwhilst at the same time \u201cdarkness covered the earth, and gross darkness\nthe people.\u201d(616) When he declares, that the light of God will only arise\nupon the Church, beyond the limits of the Church he certainly leaves\nnothing but darkness and blindness. I will not particularly recite all the\npassages which are to be found, especially in the Psalms and in the\nProphets, concerning the vanity of man. It is a striking observation of\nDavid, that \u201cto be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than\nvanity.\u201d(617) It is a severe condemnation of his understanding, when all\nthe thoughts which proceed from it are derided as foolish, frivolous, mad,\nand perverse.\n\nII. Equally severe is the condemnation of the heart, when it is called\n\u201cdeceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.\u201d(618) But as I study\nbrevity, I shall be content with citing a single passage, which, however,\nwill resemble a very lucid mirror, in which we may behold at full length\nthe image of our nature. For the Apostle, when he wishes to demolish the\narrogance of mankind, does it by these testimonies: \u201cThere is none\nrighteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none\nthat seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are\ntogether become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.\nTheir throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used\ndeceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of\ncursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction\nand misery are in their ways; there is no fear of God before their\neyes.\u201d(619) In this terrible manner he inveighs, not against particular\nindividuals, but against all the posterity of Adam. He does not declaim\nagainst the depraved manners of one or another age, but accuses the\nperpetual corruption of our nature. For his design in that passage is not\nsimply to rebuke men, in order that they may repent, but rather to teach\nus that all men are overwhelmed with an inevitable calamity, from which\nthey can never emerge unless they are extricated by the mercy of God. As\nthis could not be proved unless it were evinced by the ruin and\ndestruction of our nature, he has adduced these testimonies, which\ndemonstrate our nature to be totally ruined. Let this, then, be admitted,\nthat men are such as they are here described, not only by corrupt habits,\nbut also by a depravity of nature; for otherwise the reasoning of the\nApostle could not be supported, \u201cthat there is no salvation for man but\nfrom the mercy of God; since in himself he is in a ruined and desperate\ncondition.\u201d Here I shall not attempt to establish the application of the\ntestimonies, to preclude the appearance of their being improperly\nintroduced. I shall treat them just as if they had been originally uttered\nby Paul, and not quoted from the Prophets. He divests man first of\nrighteousness, that is, integrity and purity, and then of understanding.\nDefect of understanding is proved by apostasy from God, the seeking of\nwhom is the first step in the path of wisdom; but this loss must\nnecessarily befall those who have revolted from God. He adds, that all\nhave gone out of the way, and are become altogether corrupt, that there is\nnot one that does good. Then he subjoins the flagitious crimes, with which\nthey, who are once abandoned to iniquity, contaminate all the members of\ntheir bodies. Lastly, he declares them to be destitute of the fear of God,\nthe rule by which all our steps ought to be directed. If these are the\nhereditary characters of mankind, in vain do we seek in our nature for any\nthing that is good. I grant, indeed, that all these crimes are not\nexhibited in every individual; yet it cannot be denied that this monster\nlurks in the hearts of all. For as the body, which already contains within\nitself the cause and matter of a disease, although it has yet no sensation\nof pain, cannot be said to enjoy good health, neither can the soul be\nesteemed healthy, while it is full of such moral maladies; although this\nsimilitude will not correspond in every particular; for in the body,\nhowever diseased, there remains the vigour of life; but the soul, immersed\nin this gulf of iniquity, is not only the subject of vices, but totally\ndestitute of every thing that is good.\n\nIII. A question, nearly the same as we have already answered, here\npresents itself to us again. For in all ages there have been some persons,\nwho, from the mere dictates of nature, have devoted their whole lives to\nthe pursuit of virtue. And though many errors might perhaps be discovered\nin their conduct, yet by their pursuit of virtue they afforded a proof,\nthat there was some degree of purity in their nature. The value attached\nto virtues of such a description before God, we shall more fully discuss\nwhen we come to treat of the merits of works; yet it must be stated also\nin this place, so far as is necessary for the elucidation of the present\nsubject. These examples, then, seem to teach us that we should not\nconsider human nature to be totally corrupted; since, from its instinctive\nbias, some men have not only been eminent for noble actions, but have\nuniformly conducted themselves in a most virtuous manner through the whole\ncourse of their lives. But here we ought to remember, that amidst this\ncorruption of nature there is some room for Divine grace, not to purify\nit, but internally to restrain its operations. For should the Lord permit\nthe minds of all men to give up the reins to every lawless passion, there\ncertainly would not be an individual in the world, whose actions would not\nevince all the crimes, for which Paul condemns human nature in general, to\nbe most truly applicable to him. For can you except yourself from the\nnumber of those whose feet are swift to shed blood, whose hands are\npolluted with rapine and murder, whose throats are like open sepulchres,\nwhose tongues are deceitful, whose lips are envenomed, whose works are\nuseless, iniquitous, corrupt, and deadly, whose souls are estranged from\nGod, the inmost recesses of whose hearts are full of pravity, whose eyes\nare insidiously employed, whose minds are elated with insolence\u2014in a word,\nall whose powers are prepared for the commission of atrocious and\ninnumerable crimes? If every soul be subject to all these monstrous vices,\nas the Apostle fearlessly pronounces, we clearly see what would be the\nconsequence, if the Lord should suffer the human passions to go all the\nlengths to which they are inclined. There is no furious beast, that would\nbe agitated with such ungovernable rage; there is no river, though ever so\nrapid and violent, that would overflow its boundaries with such\nimpetuosity. In his elect, the Lord heals these maladies by a method which\nwe shall hereafter describe. In others, he restrains them, only to prevent\ntheir ebullitions so far as he sees to be necessary for the preservation\nof the universe. Hence some by shame, and some by fear of the laws, are\nprevented from running into many kinds of pollutions, though they cannot\nin any great degree dissemble their impurity; others, because they think\nthat a virtuous course of life is advantageous, entertain some languid\ndesires after it; others go further, and display more than common\nexcellence, that by their majesty they may confine the vulgar to their\nduty. Thus God by his providence restrains the perverseness of our nature\nfrom breaking out into external acts, but does not purify it within.\n\nIV. But it may be said, the difficulty is not yet removed. For either we\nmust esteem Camillus to be exactly similar to Catiline, or in Camillus we\nshall have an example that nature, if it be studiously cultivated, is not\naltogether destitute of goodness. I grant, indeed, that the virtues\ndisplayed in Camillus were gifts of God, and if considered in themselves,\nappear justly worthy of commendation: but how will they be proofs of any\nnatural goodness in him? To establish this, must we not recur to the\nheart, and argue, that if a natural man was eminent for such integrity of\nmanners, human nature is not destitute of ability for the pursuit of\nvirtue? But what if his heart was depraved and perverted, and followed any\nthing rather than the path of rectitude? And that it was such, if you\nconcede that he was a natural man, is beyond all doubt. What ability,\nthen, will you attribute to human nature for the pursuit of virtue, if,\nwith the greatest appearance of integrity, it is discovered to be always\ntending to corruption? Therefore, as you will not commend a man for\nvirtue, whose vices have only counterfeited the external form of virtue,\nso you must not attribute to the human will a power of desiring what is\nright, as long as it continues fixed in its perverseness. The most certain\nand easy solution of this question, however, is, that those virtues are\nnot the common properties of nature, but the peculiar graces of God, which\nhe dispenses in great variety, and in a certain degree to men that are\notherwise profane. For which reason we hesitate not, in common speech, to\ncall the nature of one man good, and of another depraved. Yet we still\ninclude both in the universal state of human depravity; but we signify\nwhat peculiar grace God has conferred on the one, with which he has not\ndeigned to favour the other. When he determined to exalt Saul to the\nkingdom, he made him, as it were, a new man; and this is the reason why\nPlato, alluding to the fable of Homer, says, that the sons of kings are\nformed with some distinguishing singularity of character; because God,\nconsulting the benefit of mankind, frequently furnishes with an heroic\nnature those whom he destines to hold the reins of empire; and from this\nsource have proceeded all the exploits of great heroes which are\ncelebrated in history. The same judgment must be formed concerning those\nalso who are in a private station. But because every one who has risen to\ngreat eminence has been impelled by his ambition, which defiles all\nvirtues, and deprives them of all excellence in the Divine view, whatever\nmay be apparently laudable in ungodly men, ought not to be esteemed at all\nmeritorious. Besides, the chief branch of rectitude is wanting, where\nthere is no concern to display the glory of God: of this principle all are\ndestitute whom he has not regenerated by his Spirit. Nor is it in vain\nthat Isaiah says, that \u201cthe spirit of the fear of the Lord shall rest\nupon\u201d Christ;(620) which teaches us, that all who are alienated from\nChrist are destitute of that \u201cfear of the Lord\u201d which is \u201cthe beginning of\nwisdom.\u201d(621) The virtues which deceive us by their vain and specious\nappearance, will be applauded in civil courts, and in the common\nestimation of mankind; but before the celestial tribunal they will possess\nno value to merit the reward of righteousness.\n\nV. The will, therefore, is so bound by the slavery of sin, that it cannot\nexcite itself, much less devote itself to any thing good; for such a\ndisposition is the beginning of a conversion to God, which in the\nScriptures is attributed solely to Divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays to\nthe Lord to convert or turn him, if he would have him to be turned.(622)\nWhence the Prophet, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual\nredemption of the faithful, says, \u201cThe Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and\nransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he;\u201d(623)\nalluding to the strong fetters with which the sinner is bound as long as\nhe is deserted by the Lord, and continues under the yoke of the devil.\nNevertheless there still remains the faculty of will, which with the\nstrongest propensity is inclined to and rushes into sin; for when man\nsubjected himself to this necessity, he was not deprived of his will, but\nof soundness of will. Bernard properly observes, that we all have a power\nto will; but that to will what is good, is an advantage; to will what is\nevil, a defect. Therefore simply to will belongs to man; to will what is\nevil, to corrupt nature; to will what is good, to grace. Now, when I\nassert that the will, being deprived of its liberty, is necessarily drawn\nor led into evil, I should wonder, if any one considered it as a harsh\nexpression, since it has nothing in it absurd, nor is it unsanctioned by\nthe custom of good men. It offends those who know not how to distinguish\nbetween necessity and compulsion. But if any one should ask them, whether\nGod is not necessarily good, and whether the devil is not necessarily\nevil,\u2014what answer will they make? For there is such a close connection\nbetween the goodness of God and his Deity, that his being God is not more\nnecessary than his being good. But the devil is by his fall so alienated\nfrom communion with all that is good, that he can do nothing but what is\nevil. But if any one should sacrilegiously object, that little praise is\ndue to God for his goodness, which he is constrained to preserve,\u2014shall we\nnot readily reply, that his inability to do evil arises from his infinite\ngoodness, and not from the impulse of violence? Therefore, if a necessity\nof doing well impairs not the liberty of the Divine will in doing well; if\nthe devil, who cannot but do evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; who then\nwill assert that man sins less voluntarily, because he is under a\nnecessity of sinning? This necessity Augustine every where maintains; and\neven when he was pressed with the cavils of Celestius, who tried to throw\nan odium on this doctrine, he confidently expressed himself in these\nterms: \u201cBy means of liberty it came to pass that man fell into sin; but\nnow the penal depravity consequent on it, instead of liberty, has\nintroduced necessity.\u201d And whenever the mention of this subject occurs, he\nhesitates not to speak in this manner of the necessary servitude of sin.\nWe must therefore observe this grand point of distinction, that man,\nhaving been corrupted by his fall, sins voluntarily, not with reluctance\nor constraint; with the strongest propensity of disposition, not with\nviolent coercion; with the bias of his own passions, and not with external\ncompulsion: yet such is the pravity of his nature, that he cannot be\nexcited and biassed to any thing but what is evil. If this be true, there\nis no impropriety in affirming, that he is under a necessity of sinning.\nBernard, subscribing to what is said by Augustine, thus expresses himself:\n\u201cAmong all the animals, man alone is free; and yet, by the intervention of\nsin, he also suffers a species of violence; but from the will, not from\nnature, so that he is not thereby deprived of his innate liberty.\u201d For\nwhat is voluntary is also free. And a little after: \u201cThe will being, by I\nknow not what corrupt and surprising means, changed for the worse, is\nitself the author of the necessity to which it is subject; so that neither\nnecessity, being voluntary, can excuse the will, nor the will, being\nfascinated, can exclude necessity.\u201d For this necessity is in some measure\nvoluntary. Afterwards he says, that we are oppressed with a yoke, but no\nother than that of a voluntary servitude; that therefore our servitude\nrenders us miserable, and our will renders us inexcusable; because the\nwill, when it was free, made itself the slave of sin. At length he\nconcludes, \u201cThus the soul, in a certain strange and evil manner, under\nthis kind of voluntary and free yet pernicious necessity, is both enslaved\nand free; enslaved by necessity, free by its will; and, what is more\nwonderful and more miserable, it is guilty, because free; and enslaved\nwherein it is guilty; and so therein enslaved wherein it is free.\u201d From\nthese passages the reader clearly perceives that I am teaching no novel\ndoctrine, but what was long ago advanced by Augustine, with the universal\nconsent of pious men, and which for nearly a thousand years after was\nconfined to the cloisters of monks. But Lombard, for want of knowing how\nto distinguish necessity from coaction, gave rise to a pernicious error.\n\nVI. It is necessary, on the other hand, to consider the remedy of Divine\ngrace, by which the depravity of nature is corrected and healed. For since\nthe Lord, in the assistance which he affords us, bestows on us that which\nwe need, an exhibition of the nature of his work in us will immediately\ndiscover the nature of our necessity. When the Apostle tells the\nPhilippians, that he is \u201cconfident that he which hath begun a good work in\nthem will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ;\u201d(624) by the beginning\nof a good work he undoubtedly designs the commencement of conversion,\nwhich takes place in the will. Therefore God begins the good work in us by\nexciting in our hearts a love, desire, and ardent pursuit of\nrighteousness; or, to speak more properly, by bending, forming, and\ndirecting our hearts towards righteousness; but he completes it, by\nconfirming us to perseverance. That no one may cavil, that the good work\nis begun by the Lord, inasmuch as the will, which is weak of itself, is\nassisted by him, the Spirit declares in another place how far the ability\nof the will reaches, when left to itself. \u201cA new heart also,\u201d says he,\n\u201cwill I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take\naway the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of\nflesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my\nstatutes.\u201d(625) Who will assert that the infirmity of the human will is\nonly strengthened by assistance, to enable it efficaciously to aspire to\nthe choice of that which is good, when it actually needs a total\ntransformation and renovation? If there be in a stone any softness, which,\nby some application, being made more tender, would be flexible in every\ndirection, then I will not deny the flexibility of the human heart to the\nobedience of rectitude, provided its imperfections are supplied by the\ngrace of God. But if, by this similitude, the Lord intended to show that\nno good will ever be extracted from our hearts, unless they are entirely\nrenewed, let us not divide between him and us, what he claims exclusively\nto himself. If, therefore, when God converts us to the pursuit of\nrectitude, this change is like the transformation of a stone into flesh,\nit follows, that whatever belongs to our own will is removed, and what\nsucceeds to it is entirely from God. The will, I say, is removed, not\nconsidered as the will; because, in the conversion of man, the properties\nof our original nature remain entire. I assert also, that it is created\nanew, not that the will then begins to exist, but that it is then\nconverted from an evil into a good one. This I affirm to be done entirely\nby God, because, according to the testimony of the same Apostle, \u201cwe are\nnot sufficient\u201d even \u201cto think.\u201d(626) Therefore he elsewhere declares, not\nmerely that God assists the infirmity of our will, or corrects its\ndepravity, but that he \u201cworketh in us to will.\u201d(627) Whence it is easy to\ninfer what I have already remarked, that whatever good is in the human\nwill, is the work of pure grace. In the same sense he elsewhere pronounces\nthat it is \u201cGod which worketh all in all.\u201d(628) For in that place he is\nnot discussing the government of the universe, but asserting that the\npraise of all the excellences found in the faithful belongs to God alone.\nAnd by using the word \u201call,\u201d he certainly makes God the author of\nspiritual life from its commencement even to its termination. This is the\nsame as he had before taught in other words, declaring that the faithful\nare \u201cof God in Christ;\u201d(629) where he evidently intends the new creation,\nby which what belonged to our common nature is abolished. For we must here\nunderstand an implied contrast between Adam and Christ, which he states\nmore plainly in another place, where he teaches that \u201cwe are the\nworkmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God\nhath before ordained that we should walk in them.\u201d(630) For by this\nargument he designs to prove that our salvation is gratuitous, because the\nbeginning of all good is from the second creation, which we obtain in\nChrist. Now, if we possessed any ability, though ever so small, we should\nalso have some portion of merit. But to annihilate all our pretensions, he\nargues that we have merited nothing, because \u201cwe are created in Christ\nJesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained;\u201d in which\nexpressions he again signifies that all the parts of good works, even from\nthe first inclination of the mind, are entirely from God. For this reason\nthe Psalmist, after having said that \u201che (God) hath made us,\u201d that there\nmay be no division of the work, immediately subjoins, \u201cand not we\nourselves.\u201d(631) That he speaks of regeneration, which is the commencement\nof the spiritual life, is evident from the context, where it follows\nimmediately after, that \u201cwe are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.\u201d\nWe see, then, that not content with having simply attributed to God the\npraise of our salvation, he expressly excludes us from all fellowship with\nhim; as though he would say, that man has not even the smallest particle\nremaining in which he can glory, because all is of God.\n\nVII. But there may be some, who will concede that the will, being, of its\nown spontaneous inclination, averse to what is good, is converted solely\nby the power of the Lord; yet in such a manner, that being previously\nprepared, it has also its own share in the work; that grace, as Augustine\nteaches, precedes every good work, the will following grace, not leading\nit, being its companion, not its guide. This unobjectionable observation\nof that holy man, Peter Lombard preposterously wrests to an erroneous\nmeaning. Now, I contend that both in the words of the Prophet which I have\ncited, and in other passages, these two things are clearly signified, that\nthe Lord corrects our depraved will, or rather removes it, and of himself\nintroduces a good one in its place. As it is preceded by grace, I allow\nyou to style it an attendant; but since its reformation is the work of the\nLord, it is wrong to attribute to man a voluntary obedience in following\nthe guidance of grace. Therefore it is not a proper expression of\nChrysostom, that grace is able to effect nothing without the will, nor the\nwill without grace; as if grace did not produce the will itself, as we\nhave just seen from Paul. Nor was it the intention of Augustine, when he\ncalled the human will the companion of grace, to assign to it any\nsecondary office next to grace in the good work; but with a view to refute\nthe nefarious dogma broached by Pelagius, who made the prime cause of\nsalvation to consist in human merit, he contends, what was sufficient for\nhis present argument, that grace is prior to all merit; omitting, at this\ntime, the other question concerning the perpetual efficiency of grace,\nwhich is admirably treated by him on other occasions. For when he\nfrequently says, that the Lord precedes the unwilling that he may will,\nand follows the willing that he may not will in vain, he makes him the\nsole author of the good work. His language on this subject is too explicit\nto require much argument. \u201cMen labour,\u201d says he, \u201cto discover in our will\nsomething that is our own, and not derived from God; and how any such\ndiscovery can be made, I know not.\u201d In his first book against Pelagius and\nCelestius, where he explains that declaration of Christ, \u201cEvery man that\nhath heard of the Father cometh unto me,\u201d(632) he says, that \u201cthe will is\nassisted so as to enable it not only to know its duty, but what it knows,\nalso to do.\u201d And thus when God teaches not by the letter of the law, but\nby the grace of the Spirit, he teaches in such a manner, that whatever\neach one has learned, he not only sees in knowing it, but desires in\nwilling, and performs in doing.\n\nVIII. And as we are now engaged on the principal point of the argument,\nlet us give the reader a summary of the doctrine, and prove it by a few\nvery clear testimonies of Scripture; and then, that no one may accuse us\nof perverting the Scripture, let us also show that the truth which we\nassert to be deduced from the Scripture is not destitute of the support of\nthis holy man; I mean Augustine. For I conceive it is unnecessary to\nrecite in regular order all the passages which might be adduced from the\nScriptures in confirmation of our opinion; provided that the selection,\nwhich shall be made, prepares a way to the understanding of all the rest,\nwhich are frequently to be found. Nor do I think that there will be any\nimpropriety in evincing my agreement with that man, to whose authority the\nconsent of the pious pays a great and merited deference. The origin of all\ngood clearly appears, from a plain and certain reason, to be from no other\nthan from God alone; for no propensity of the will to any thing good can\nbe found but in the elect. But the cause of election must not be sought in\nmen. Whence we may conclude, that man has not a good will from himself,\nbut that it proceeds from the same decree by which we were elected before\nthe creation of the world. There is also another reason, not dissimilar.\nFor since good volitions and good actions both arise from faith, we must\nsee whence faith itself originates. Now, since the Scripture uniformly\nproclaims it to be the gratuitous gift of God, it follows that it is the\neffect of mere grace, when we, who are naturally and completely prone to\nevil, begin to will any thing that is good. Therefore the Lord, when he\nmentions these two things in the conversion of his people, that he takes\naway from them their stony heart, and gives them a heart of flesh, plainly\ndeclares, that what originates from ourselves must be removed, that we may\nbe converted to righteousness; and that whatever succeeds in its place\nproceeds from himself. Nor is it only in one passage that he announces\nthis; for he says in Jeremiah, \u201cI will give them one heart and one way,\nthat they may fear me for ever.\u201d(633) And a little after, \u201cI will put my\nfear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.\u201d Again in\nEzekiel, \u201cI will give them one heart, and will put a new spirit within\nyou; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give\nthem a heart of flesh.\u201d(634) He could not more evidently claim to himself\nand take from us all that is good and upright in our will, than when he\ndeclares our conversion to be the creation of a new spirit and of a new\nheart. For it always follows, that nothing good proceeds from our will\ntill it be renovated; and that after its renovation, as far as it is good,\nit is from God, and not from ourselves.\n\nIX. And we find the saints have made this the subject of their prayers.\nSolomon prayed, \u201cMay the Lord incline our hearts unto him to keep his\ncommandments.\u201d(635) He shows the stubbornness of our heart, which, unless\na new bias be given to it, naturally indulges itself in rebellion against\nthe Divine law. The same petition is offered by the Psalmist: \u201cIncline my\nheart unto thy testimonies.\u201d(636) For we should always remark the\nopposition between the perverse bias of the heart, which inclines it to\nrebellion, and this correction, which constrains it to obedience. But when\nDavid, perceiving himself to be for a time deprived of the direction of\ngrace, prays that God would \u201ccreate in\u201d him \u201ca clean heart, and renew a\nright spirit within\u201d him,(637) does he not acknowledge that all the parts\nof his heart are full of impurity, and his spirit warped by a depraved\nobliquity? and by calling the purity which he earnestly implores, the\ncreation of God, does he not ascribe it entirely to him? If any one\nobject, that the petition itself is a proof of a pious and holy affection,\nthe answer is easy, that although David had already partly repented, yet\nhe compares his former state with that melancholy fall, which he had\nexperienced. Assuming the character, therefore, of a man alienated from\nGod, he properly requests for himself all those things which God confers\non his elect in regeneration. Resembling a dead man, therefore, he prays\nto be created anew, that, instead of being the slave of Satan, he may\nbecome the instrument of the Holy Spirit. Truly wonderful and monstrous is\nthe extravagance of our pride. God requires of us nothing more severe than\nthat we most religiously observe his sabbath, by resting from our own\nworks; but there is nothing which we find more difficult, or to which we\nare more reluctant, than to bid farewell to our own works, in order to\ngive the works of God their proper place. If there were no obstacle\narising from our folly, Christ has given a testimony to his graces,\nsufficiently clear to prevent them from being wickedly suppressed. \u201cI am\nthe vine,\u201d says he, \u201cye are the branches. My Father is the husbandman. As\nthe branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no\nmore can ye, except ye abide in me. For without me ye can do\nnothing.\u201d(638) If we cannot bear fruit of ourselves, any more than a\nbranch can bud after it is torn up from the ground, and deprived of\nmoisture, we must no longer seek for any aptitude in our nature to that\nwhich is good. There is no ambiguity in this conclusion, \u201cWithout me ye\ncan do nothing.\u201d He does not say that we are too weak to be sufficient for\nourselves, but reducing us to nothing, excludes every idea of ability,\nhowever diminutive. If, being engrafted into Christ, we bear fruit like a\nvine, which derives the energy of vegetation from the moisture of the\nearth, from the dew of heaven, and from the benign influences of the sun,\nI see nothing of our own remaining in any good work, if we preserve entire\nto God the honour which belongs to him. It is in vain to urge that\nfrivolous subtlety, that the branch already possesses sap, and a\nfructifying power, and that therefore it does not derive all from the\nearth, or from the original root, because it contributes something of its\nown. For the meaning of Christ is clearly that we are as a dry and\nworthless log, when separated from him; because, independently of him, we\nhave no ability to do good, as he says also in another place: \u201cEvery\nplant, which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up.\u201d(639)\nWherefore the Apostle ascribes all the praise to him in the place already\ncited. \u201cIt is God,\u201d says he, \u201cwhich worketh in you both to will and to\ndo.\u201d(640) The first part of a good work is volition, the next an effectual\nendeavour to perform it; God is the author of both. Therefore we rob the\nLord, if we arrogate any thing to ourselves either in volition or in\nexecution. If God were said to assist the infirmity of our will, then\nthere would be something left to us; but since he is said to produce the\nwill, all the good that is in it, is placed without us. And because the\ngood will is still oppressed by the burden of our flesh, so that it cannot\nextricate itself, he has added, that in struggling with the difficulties\nof that conflict, we are supplied with constancy of exertion to carry our\nvolitions into effect. For otherwise there would be no truth in what he\nelsewhere teaches, that \u201cit is the same God which worketh all in\nall,\u201d(641) which we have before shown comprehends the whole course of the\nspiritual life. For which reason David, after having prayed that the way\nof God may be discovered to him, that he may walk in his truth,\nimmediately adds, \u201cUnite my heart to fear thy name.\u201d(642) In these words\nhe intimates, that even good men are subject to so many distractions of\nmind, that they soon wander and fall, unless they are strengthened to\npersevere. For the same reason, in another passage, having prayed that his\nsteps might be ordered in the word of the Lord, he likewise implores\nstrength for a warfare: \u201cLet not any iniquity have dominion over me.\u201d(643)\nIn this manner, therefore, the Lord both begins and completes the good\nwork in us; that it may be owing to him, that the will conceives a love\nfor what is right, that it is inclined to desire it, and is excited and\nimpelled to endeavour to attain it; and then that the choice, desire, and\nendeavour do not fail, but proceed even to the completion of the desired\neffect; lastly, that a man proceeds with constancy in them, and perseveres\neven to the end.\n\nX. And he moves the will, not according to the system maintained and\nbelieved for many ages, in such a manner that it would afterwards be at\nour option either to obey the impulse or to resist it, but by an\nefficacious influence. The observation, therefore, so frequently repeated\nby Chrysostom, that \u201cWhom God draws, he draws willing,\u201d we are obliged to\nreject, being an insinuation that God only waits for us with his hand\nextended, if we choose to accept his assistance. We grant that such was\nthe primitive condition of man during his state of integrity, that he\ncould incline to the one side or the other; but since Adam has taught us\nby his own example how miserable free will is, unless God give us both\nwill and power, what will become of us if he impart his grace to us in\nthat small proportion? Nay, we obscure and diminish his grace by our\ningratitude. For the Apostle does not teach that the grace of a good will\nis offered to us for our acceptance, but that he \u201cworketh in us to will;\u201d\nwhich is equivalent to saying, that the Lord, by his Spirit, directs,\ninclines, and governs our heart, and reigns in it as in his own\npossession. Nor does he promise by Ezekiel that he will give to the elect\na new spirit, only that they may be able to walk, but that they may\nactually walk, in his precepts.(644) Nor can the declaration of Christ,\n\u201cEvery man that hath heard of the Father cometh unto me,\u201d(645) be\nunderstood in any other sense than as a proof of the positive efficacy of\nDivine grace; as Augustine also contends. This grace the Lord deigns not\nto give to any person promiscuously, according to the observation commonly\nattributed, if I mistake not, to Occam, that it is denied to no man who\ndoes what he can. Men are to be taught, indeed, that the Divine benignity\nis free to all who seek it, without any exception; but since none begin to\nseek it, but those who have been inspired by heavenly grace, not even this\ndiminutive portion ought to be taken from his praise. This is the\nprivilege of the elect, that, being regenerated by the Spirit of God, they\nare led and governed by his direction. Wherefore Augustine as justly\nridicules those who arrogate to themselves any part of a good volition, as\nhe reprehends others, who suppose that to be given promiscuously to all,\nwhich is the special evidence of gratuitous election. \u201cNature,\u201d says he,\n\u201cis common to all men, but not grace.\u201d He calls it \u201ca transparent\nsubtlety, which shines merely with vanity, when that is extended generally\nto all, which God confers on whom he chooses.\u201d But elsewhere, \u201cHow have\nyou come? by believing. Be afraid, lest while you arrogate to yourself the\ndiscovery of the way of righteousness, you perish from the way of\nrighteousness. I am come, you say, by free will; I am come through my own\nchoice. Why are you inflated with pride? Will you know that this also is\ngiven to you? Hear him proclaiming, \u2018No man can come to me, except the\nFather which hath sent me draw him.\u2019 \u201d(646) And it incontrovertibly\nfollows, from the words of John, that the hearts of the pious are divinely\ngoverned with such effect, that they follow with an affection which\nnothing can alter. \u201cWhosoever is born of God,\u201d he says, \u201ccannot sin; for\nhis seed remaineth in him.\u201d(647) For we see that the neutral,\ninefficacious impulse imagined by the sophists, which every one would be\nat liberty to obey or resist, is evidently excluded, where it is asserted\nthat God gives a constancy that is effectual to perseverance.\n\nXI. Concerning perseverance there would have been no doubt that it ought\nto be esteemed the gratuitous gift of God, had it not been for the\nprevalence of a pestilent error, that it is dispensed according to the\nmerit of men, in proportion to the gratitude which each person has\ndiscovered for the grace bestowed on him. But as that opinion arose from\nthe supposition that it was at our own option to reject or accept the\noffered grace of God, this notion being exploded, the other falls of\ncourse. Though here is a double error; for beside teaching that our\ngratitude for the grace first bestowed on us, and our legitimate use of\nthat grace, are remunerated by subsequent blessings, they add also, that\nnow grace does not operate alone in us, but only co\u00f6perates with us. On\nthe first point, we must admit that the Lord, while he daily enriches and\nloads his servants with new communications of his grace, perceiving the\nwork which he has begun in them grateful and acceptable, discovers\nsomething in them which he blesses with still greater degrees of grace.\nAnd this is implied in the following declarations: \u201cUnto every one that\nhath, shall be given.\u201d And, \u201cWell done, good and faithful servant; thou\nhast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many\nthings.\u201d(648) But here two errors must be avoided; the legitimate use of\nthe grace first bestowed must not be said to be rewarded with subsequent\ndegrees of grace, as though man, by his own industry, rendered the grace\nof God efficacious; nor must it be accounted a remuneration in such a\nsense as to cease to be esteemed the free favour of God. I grant, then,\nthat this Divine benediction is to be expected by the faithful, that the\nbetter they have used the former measures of grace, they shall afterwards\nbe enriched with proportionably greater degrees of it. But I assert that\nthis use also is from the Lord, and that this remuneration proceeds from\nhis gratuitous benevolence. They are equally awkward and unhappy in their\nuse of the trite distinction of operating and co\u00f6perating grace. Augustine\nhas used it indeed, but softens it by a suitable definition; that God in\nco\u00f6perating completes what in operating he begins, and that it is the same\ngrace, but derives its name from the different mode of its efficiency.\nWhence it follows, that he makes no partition of the work between God and\nus, as though there were a mutual concurrence from the respective\nexertions of each; but that he only designates the multiplication of\ngrace. To the same purpose is what he elsewhere asserts, that the good\nwill of man precedes many of the gifts of God, but is itself one of their\nnumber. Whence it follows, that he leaves nothing for it to arrogate to\nitself. This is also particularly expressed by Paul. For having said that\n\u201cit is God which worketh in us both to will and to do,\u201d(649) he\nimmediately adds, that he does both \u201cof his own good pleasure,\u201d signifying\nby this expression that these are acts of gratuitous benignity. Now, to\ntheir wonted assertion, that after we have admitted the first grace, our\nown endeavours co\u00f6perate with the grace which follows, I reply, if they\nmean that, after having been once subdued by the Divine power to the\nobedience of righteousness, we voluntarily advance, and are disposed to\nfollow the guidance of grace, I make no objection. For it is very certain,\nthat where the grace of God reigns, there is such a promptitude of\nobedience. But whence does this arise but from the Spirit of God, who,\nuniformly consistent with himself, cherishes and strengthens to a\nconstancy of perseverance that disposition of obedience which he first\noriginated? But if they mean that man derives from himself an ability to\nco\u00f6perate with the grace of God, they are involved in a most pestilent\nerror.\n\nXII. And to this purpose they falsely and ignorantly pervert that\nobservation of the Apostle, \u201cI laboured more abundantly than they all; yet\nnot I, but the grace of God which was with me.\u201d(650) For they understand\nit in this manner; that because his preference of himself to all others\nmight appear rather too arrogant, he corrects it by referring the praise\nto the grace of God; but yet so as to denominate himself a co\u00f6perator with\ngrace. It is surprising that so many men, not otherwise erroneous, have\nstumbled at this imaginary difficulty. For the Apostle does not say that\nthe grace of God laboured with him, to make himself a partner in the\nlabour; but rather by that correction ascribes the whole praise of the\nlabour to grace alone. \u201cIt is not I,\u201d says he, \u201cthat have laboured, but\nthe grace of God which was with me.\u201d They have been deceived by an\nambiguity of expression; but still more by a preposterous translation, in\nwhich the force of the Greek article is omitted. For if you translate it\nliterally, he says, not that grace was co\u00f6perative with him, but that the\ngrace which was with him was the author of all. And the same is maintained\nby Augustine, though briefly, yet without obscurity, when he thus\nexpresses himself: \u201cThe good will of man precedes many of the gifts of\nGod, but not all. But of those which it precedes it is itself one.\u201d Then\nfollows this reason; because it is written, \u201cThe God of my mercy shall\nprevent me.\u201d(651) And, \u201cMercy shall follow me.\u201d(652) It prevents the\nunwilling, that he may will; it follows the willing, that he may not will\nin vain. With this agrees Bernard, who introduces the Church, saying,\n\u201cDraw me unwilling, to make me willing; draw me inactive, to make me run.\u201d\n\nXIII. Now, let us hear Augustine speak in his own words, lest the sophists\nof the Sorbonne, those Pelagians of the present age, according to their\nusual custom, accuse us of opposing the whole current of antiquity. In\nthis they imitate their father Pelagius, by whom Augustine was formerly\nobliged to enter into the same field of controversy. In his treatise _De\nCorr. et Grat._, addressed to Valentine, he treats very much at large what\nI shall recite briefly, but in his own words: \u201cThat to Adam was given the\ngrace of persevering in good if he chose; that grace is given to us to\nwill, and by willing to overcome concupiscence. That Adam therefore had\nthe power if he had the will, but not the will that he might have the\npower; but that it is given to us to have both the will and the power.\nThat the primitive liberty was a power to abstain from sin, but that ours\nis much greater, being an inability to commit sin.\u201d And lest he should be\nsupposed to speak of the perfection to be enjoyed after the attainment of\na state of immortality, as Lombard misinterprets his meaning, he presently\nremoves this difficulty. For he says, \u201cthe will of the saints is so\ninflamed by the Holy Spirit, that they therefore have an ability, because\nthey have such a will; and that their having such a will proceeds from the\noperations of God.\u201d For if, amidst such great weakness, which still\nrequires \u201cstrength\u201d to be \u201cmade perfect\u201d(653) for the repressing of pride,\nthey were left to their own will, so as to have ability, through the\nDivine assistance, if they were willing, and God did not operate in them\nto produce that will; among so many temptations and infirmities their will\nwould fail, and therefore they could not possibly persevere. The infirmity\nof the human will, then, is succoured, that it may be invariably and\ninseparably actuated by Divine grace, and so, notwithstanding all its\nweakness, may not fail. He afterwards discusses more at large how our\nhearts necessarily follow the impulse of God; and he asserts that the Lord\ndraws men with their own wills, but that those wills are such as he\nhimself has formed. Now, we have a testimony from the mouth of Augustine\nto the point which we are principally endeavouring to establish; that\ngrace is not merely offered by the Lord to be either received or rejected,\naccording to the free choice of each individual, but that it is grace\nwhich produces both the choice and the will in the heart; so that every\nsubsequent good work is the fruit and effect of it, and that it is obeyed\nby no other will but that which it has produced. For this is his language\nalso in another place\u2014that it is grace alone which performs every good\nwork in us.\n\nXIV. When he observes that the will is not taken away by grace, but only\nchanged from a bad one into a good one, and when it is good, assisted; he\nonly intends that man is not drawn in such a manner as to be carried away\nby an external impulse, without any inclination of his mind; but that he\nis internally so disposed as to obey from his very heart. That grace is\nspecially and gratuitously given to the elect, he maintains in an epistle\nto Boniface, in the following language: \u201cWe know that the grace of God is\nnot given to all men; and that to them to whom it is given, it is given\nneither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of\nwill, but by gratuitous favour; and to those to whom it is not given, we\nknow that it is not given by the righteous judgment of God.\u201d And in the\nsame epistle, he strenuously combats that opinion, which supposes that\nsubsequent grace is given to the merits of men, because by not rejecting\nthe first grace they showed themselves worthy of it. For he wishes\nPelagius to allow that grace is necessary to us for every one of our\nactions, and is not a retribution of our works, that it may be\nacknowledged to be pure grace. But the subject cannot be comprised in a\nmore concise summary than in the eighth chapter of his treatise addressed\nto Valentine; where he teaches, that the human will obtains, not grace by\nliberty, but liberty by grace; that being impressed by the same grace with\na disposition of delight, it is formed for perpetuity; that it is\nstrengthened with invincible fortitude; that while grace reigns, it never\nfalls, but, deserted by grace, falls immediately; that by the gratuitous\nmercy of the Lord, it is converted to what is good, and, being converted,\nperseveres in it; that the first direction of the human will to that which\nis good, and its subsequent constancy, depend solely on the will of God,\nand not on any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such a free will,\nif we choose to give it that appellation, as he describes in another\nplace, that he can neither be converted to God nor continue in God but by\ngrace; and that all the ability which he has is derived from grace.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. The Operation Of God In The Hearts Of Men.\n\n\nIt has now, I apprehend, been sufficiently proved, that man is so enslaved\nby sin, as to be of his own nature incapable of an effort, or even an\naspiration, towards that which is good. We have also laid down a\ndistinction between coaction and necessity, from which it appears that\nwhile he sins necessarily, he nevertheless sins voluntarily. But since,\nwhile he is devoted to the servitude of the devil, he seems to be actuated\nby his will, rather than by his own, it remains for us to explain the\nnature of both kinds of influence. There is also this question to be\nresolved, whether any thing is to be attributed to God in evil actions, in\nwhich the Scripture intimates that some influence of his is concerned.\nAugustine somewhere compares the human will to a horse, obedient to the\ndirection of his rider; and God and the devil he compares to riders. \u201cIf\nGod rides it, he, like a sober and skilful rider, manages it in a graceful\nmanner; stimulates its tardiness; restrains its immoderate celerity;\nrepresses its wantonness and wildness; tames its perverseness, and\nconducts it into the right way. But if the devil has taken possession of\nit, he, like a foolish and wanton rider, forces it through pathless\nplaces, hurries it into ditches, drives it down over precipices, and\nexcites it to obstinacy and ferocity.\u201d With this similitude, as no better\noccurs, we will at present be content. When the will of a natural man is\nsaid to be subject to the power of the devil, so as to be directed by it,\nthe meaning is, not that it resists and is compelled to a reluctant\nsubmission, as masters compel slaves to an unwilling performance of their\ncommands, but that, being fascinated by the fallacies of Satan, it\nnecessarily submits itself to all his directions. For those whom the Lord\ndoes not favour with the government of his Spirit, he abandons, in\nrighteous judgment, to the influence of Satan. Wherefore the Apostle says,\nthat \u201cthe god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe\nnot,\u201d who are destined to destruction, \u201clest the light of the gospel\nshould shine unto them.\u201d(654) And in another place, that he \u201cworketh in\nthe children of disobedience.\u201d(655) The blinding of the wicked, and all\nthose enormities which attend it, are called the works of Satan; the cause\nof which must nevertheless be sought only in the human will, from which\nproceeds the root of evil, and in which rests the foundation of the\nkingdom of Satan, that is, sin.\n\nII. Very different, in such instances, is the method of the Divine\noperation. And that we may have a clearer view of it, let us take as an\nexample the calamity which holy Job suffered from the Chaldeans.(656) The\nChaldeans massacred his shepherds, and committed hostile depredations on\nhis flock. Now, the wickedness of their procedure is evident; yet in these\ntransactions Satan was not unconcerned; for with him the history states\nthe whole affair to have originated. But Job himself recognizes in it the\nwork of the Lord, whom he asserts to have taken from him those things of\nwhich he had been plundered by the Chaldeans. How can we refer the same\naction to God, to Satan, and to man, as being each the author of it,\nwithout either excusing Satan by associating him with God, or making God\nthe author of evil? Very easily, if we examine, first, the end for which\nthe action was designed, and secondly, the manner in which it was\neffected. The design of the Lord is to exercise the patience of his\nservant by adversity; Satan endeavours to drive him to despair: the\nChaldeans, in defiance of law and justice, desire to enrich themselves by\nthe property of another. So great a diversity of design makes a great\ndistinction in the action. There is no less difference in the manner. The\nLord permits his servant to be afflicted by Satan: the Chaldeans, whom he\ncommissions to execute his purpose, he permits and resigns to be impelled\nby Satan: Satan, with his envenomed stings, instigates the minds of the\nChaldeans, otherwise very depraved, to perpetrate the crime: they\nfuriously rush into the act of injustice, and overwhelm themselves in\ncriminality. Satan therefore is properly said to work in the reprobate, in\nwhom he exercises his dominion; that is, the kingdom of iniquity. God also\nis said to work in a way proper to himself, because Satan, being the\ninstrument of his wrath, turns himself hither and thither at his\nappointment and command, to execute his righteous judgments. Here I allude\nnot to the universal influence of God, by which all creatures are\nsustained, and from which they derive an ability to perform whatever they\ndo. I speak only of that special influence which appears in every\nparticular act. We see, then, that the same action is without absurdity\nascribed to God, to Satan, and to man; but the variety in the end and in\nthe manner, causes the righteousness of God to shine without the least\nblemish, and the iniquity of Satan and of man to betray itself to its own\ndisgrace.\n\nIII. The fathers are sometimes too scrupulous on this subject, and afraid\nof a simple confession of the truth, lest they should afford an occasion\nto impiety to speak irreverently and reproachfully of the works of God.\nThough I highly approve this sobriety, yet I think we are in no danger, if\nwe simply maintain what the Scripture delivers. Even Augustine at one time\nwas not free from this scrupulosity; as when he says that hardening and\nblinding belong not to the operation, but to the prescience of God. But\nthese subtleties are inconsistent with numerous expressions of the\nScripture, which evidently import some intervention of God beyond mere\nforeknowledge. And Augustine himself, in his fifth book against Julian,\ncontends very largely, that sins proceed not only from the permission or\nthe prescience, but from the power of God, in order that former sins may\nthereby be punished. So also what they advance concerning permission is\ntoo weak to be supported. God is very frequently said to blind and harden\nthe reprobate, and to turn, incline, and influence their hearts, as I have\nelsewhere more fully stated. But it affords no explication of the nature\nof this influence to resort to prescience or permission. We answer,\ntherefore, that it operates in two ways. For, since, when his light is\nremoved, nothing remains but darkness and blindness; since, when his\nSpirit is withdrawn, our hearts harden into stones; since, when his\ndirection ceases, they are warped into obliquity; he is properly said to\nblind, harden, and incline those whom he deprives of the power of seeing,\nobeying, and acting aright. The second way, which is much more consistent\nwith strict propriety of language, is, when, for the execution of his\njudgments, he, by means of Satan, the minister of his wrath, directs their\ncounsels to what he pleases, and excites their wills and strengthens their\nefforts. Thus, when Moses relates that Sihon the king would not grant a\nfree passage to the people, because God had \u201chardened his spirit, and made\nhis heart obstinate,\u201d he immediately subjoins the end of God\u2019s design:\n\u201cThat he might deliver him into thy hand.\u201d(657) Since God willed his\ndestruction, the obduration of his heart, therefore, was the Divine\npreparation for his ruin.\n\nIV. The following expressions seem to relate to the former method: \u201cHe\nremoveth away the speech of the trusty, and taketh away the understanding\nof the aged. He taketh away the heart of the chief people of the earth,\nand causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.\u201d(658)\nAgain: \u201cO Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened\nour heart from thy fear?\u201d(659) For these passages rather indicate what God\nmakes men by deserting them, than show how he performs his operations\nwithin them. But there are other testimonies, which go further; as those\nwhich relate to the hardening of Pharaoh: \u201cI will harden his (Pharaoh\u2019s)\nheart, that he shall not let the people go.\u201d(660) Afterwards the Lord\nsays, \u201cI have hardened his heart.\u201d(661) Did he harden it by not mollifying\nit? That is true; but he did somewhat more, for he delivered his heart to\nSatan to be confirmed in obstinacy; whence he had before said, \u201cI will\nharden his heart.\u201d The people march out of Egypt; the inhabitants of the\ncountry meet them in a hostile manner: by whom were they excited? Moses\nexpressly declared to the people, that it was the Lord who had hardened\ntheir hearts.(662) The Psalmist, reciting the same history, says, \u201cHe\nturned their heart to hate his people.\u201d(663) Now, it cannot be said that\nthey fell in consequence of being deprived of the counsel of God. For if\nthey are \u201chardened\u201d and \u201cturned,\u201d they are positively inclined to that\npoint. Besides, whenever it has pleased him to punish the transgressions\nof his people, how has he executed his work by means of the reprobate? In\nsuch a manner that any one may see, that the efficacy of the action\nproceeded from him, and that they were only the ministers of his will.\nWherefore he threatened sometimes that he would call them forth by\nhissing,(664) sometimes that he would use them as a net(665) to entangle,\nsometimes as a hammer(666) to strike the people of Israel. But he\nparticularly declared himself to be operative in them, when he called\nSennacherib an axe,(667) which was both directed and driven by his hand.\nAugustine somewhere makes the following correct distinction: \u201cthat they\nsin, proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that\nparticular action, is from the power of God, who divides the darkness\naccording to his pleasure.\u201d\n\nV. Now that the ministry of Satan is concerned in instigating the\nreprobate, whenever the Lord directs them hither or thither by his\nprovidence, may be sufficiently proved even from one passage. For it is\nfrequently asserted in Samuel that an evil spirit of the Lord, and an evil\nspirit from the Lord, either agitated or quitted Saul.(668) To refer this\nto the Holy Spirit were impious. An impure spirit, therefore, is called a\nspirit of God, because it acts according to his command and by his power,\nbeing rather an instrument in the performance of the action, than itself\nthe author of it. We must add, also, what is advanced by Paul, that \u201cGod\nshall send strong delusion, that they who believed not the truth should\nbelieve a lie.\u201d(669) Yet there is always a wide difference, even in the\nsame work, between the operation of God and the attempts of Satan and\nwicked men. He makes the evil instruments, which he has in his hand, and\ncan turn as he pleases, to be subservient to his justice. They, as they\nare evil, produce the iniquity which the depravity of their nature has\nconceived. The other arguments, which tend to vindicate the majesty of God\nfrom every calumny, and to obviate the cavils of the impious, have already\nbeen advanced in the chapter concerning Providence. For, at present, I\nonly intend briefly to show how Satan reigns in the reprobate man, and how\nthe Lord operates in them both.\n\nVI. But what liberty man possesses in those actions which in themselves\nare neither righteous nor wicked, and pertain rather to the corporeal than\nto the spiritual life, although we have before hinted, has not yet been\nexplicitly stated. Some have admitted him in such things to possess a free\nchoice; rather, as I suppose, from a reluctance to dispute on a subject of\nno importance, than from an intention of positively asserting that which\nthey concede. Now, though I grant that they who believe themselves to be\npossessed of no power to justify themselves, believe what is principally\nnecessary to be known in order to salvation, yet I think that this point\nalso should not be neglected, that we may know it to be owing to the\nspecial favour of God, whenever our mind is disposed to choose that which\nis advantageous for us; whenever our will inclines to it; and, on the\nother hand, whenever our mind and understanding avoid what would otherwise\nhurt us. And the power of the providence of God extends so far, as not\nonly to cause those events to succeed which he foresees will be best, but\nalso to incline the wills of men to the same objects. Indeed, if we view\nthe administration of external things with our own reason, we shall not\ndoubt their subjection to the human will; but if we listen to the numerous\ntestimonies, which proclaim that in these things also the hearts of men\nare governed by the Lord, they will constrain us to submit the will itself\nto the special influence of God. Who conciliated the minds of the\nEgyptians towards the Israelites,(670) so as to induce them to lend them\nthe most valuable of their furniture? They would never have been induced\nto do this of their own accord. It follows, therefore, that their hearts\nwere guided by the Lord rather than by an inclination of their own. And\nJacob, if he had not been persuaded that God infuses various dispositions\ninto men according to his pleasure, would not have said concerning his son\nJoseph, whom he thought to be some profane Egyptian, \u201cGod Almighty give\nyou mercy before the man.\u201d(671) As the whole Church confesses in the\nPsalms, that, when God chose to compassionate her, he softened the hearts\nof the cruel nations into clemency.(672) Again, when Saul was so inflamed\nwith rage, as to prepare himself for war, it is expressly mentioned as the\ncause, that he was impelled by the Spirit of God.(673) Who diverted the\nmind of Absalom from adopting the counsel of Ahithophel, which used to be\nesteemed as an oracle?(674) Who inclined Rehoboam to be persuaded by the\ncounsel of the young men?(675) Who caused the nations, that before were\nvery valiant, to feel terror at the approach of the Israelites? Rahab the\nharlot confessed that this was the work of God. Who, on the other hand,\ndejected the minds of the Israelites with fear and terror, but he who had\nthreatened in the law that he would \u201csend a faintness into their\nhearts?\u201d(676)\n\nVII. Some one will object, that these are peculiar examples, to the rule\nof which, things ought by no means universally to be reduced. But I\nmaintain, that they are sufficient to prove that for which I contend; that\nGod, whenever he designs to prepare the way for his providence, inclines\nand moves the wills of men even in external things, and that their choice\nis not so free, but that its liberty is subject to the will of God. That\nyour mind depends more on the influence of God, than on the liberty of\nyour own choice, you must be constrained to conclude, whether you are\nwilling or not, from this daily experience, that in affairs of no\nperplexity your judgment and understanding frequently fail; that in\nundertakings not arduous your spirits languish; on the other hand, in\nthings the most obscure, suitable advice is immediately offered; in things\ngreat and perilous, your mind proves superior to every difficulty. And\nthus I explain the observation of Solomon, \u201cThe hearing ear, and the\nseeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them.\u201d(677) For he appears to\nme to speak, not of their creation, but of the peculiar favour of God\ndisplayed in their performing their functions. When he says, that \u201cthe\nking\u2019s heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of water, he\nturneth it whithersoever he will;\u201d(678) under one species he clearly\ncomprehends the whole genus. For if the will of any man be free from all\nsubjection, that privilege belongs eminently to the will of a king, which\nexercises a government in some measure over the wills of others; but if\nthe will of the king be subject to the power of God, ours cannot be\nexempted from the same authority. Augustine has a remarkable passage on\nthis subject: \u201cThe Scripture, if it be diligently examined, shows, not\nonly that the good wills of men, which he turns from evil into good, and\ndirects to good actions and to eternal life, but also that those wills\nwhich relate to the present life, are subject to the power of God, so that\nhe, by a most secret, but yet a most righteous judgment, causes them to be\ninclined whither he pleases, and when he pleases, either for the\ncommunication of benefits, or for the infliction of punishments.\u201d\n\nVIII. Here let the reader remember, that the ability of the human will is\nnot to be estimated from the event of things, as some ignorant men are\npreposterously accustomed to do. For they conceive themselves fully and\ningeniously to establish the servitude of the human will, because even the\nmost exalted monarchs have not all their desires fulfilled. But this\nability, of which we speak, is to be considered within man, and not to be\nmeasured by external success. For in the dispute concerning free will, the\nquestion is not, whether a man, notwithstanding external impediments, can\nperform and execute whatever he may have resolved in his mind, but whether\nin every case his judgment exerts freedom of choice, and his will freedom\nof inclination. If men possess both these, then Attilius Regulus, when\nconfined to the small extent of a cask stuck round with nails, will\npossess as much free will as Augustus C\u00e6sar, when governing a great part\nof the world with his nod.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V. A Refutation Of The Objections Commonly Urged In Support Of\nFree Will.\n\n\nEnough might appear to have been already said on the servitude of the\nhuman will, did not they, who endeavour to overthrow it with a false\nnotion of liberty, allege, on the contrary, certain reasons in opposition\nto our sentiments. First, they collect together some absurdities, in order\nto render it odious, as if it were abhorrent to common sense; and then\nthey attack it with testimonies of Scripture. Both these weapons we will\nrepel in order. If sin, say they, be necessary, then it ceases to be sin;\nif it be voluntary, then it may be avoided. These were also the weapons\nused by Pelagius in his attacks on Augustine; with whose authority,\nhowever, we wish not to urge them, till we shall have given some\nsatisfaction on the subject itself. I deny, then, that sin is the less\ncriminal, because it is necessary; I deny also the other consequence,\nwhich they infer, that it is avoidable because it is voluntary. For, if\nany one wish to dispute with God, and to escape his judgment by the\npretext of having been incapable of acting otherwise, he is prepared with\nan answer, which we have elsewhere advanced, that it arises not from\ncreation, but from the corruption of nature, that men, being enslaved by\nsin, can will nothing but what is evil. For whence proceeded that\nimpotence, of which the ungodly would gladly avail themselves, but from\nAdam voluntarily devoting himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence,\ntherefore, the corruption with which we are firmly bound. It originated in\nthe revolt of the first man from his Maker. If all men are justly\naccounted guilty of this rebellion, let them not suppose themselves\nexcused by necessity, in which very thing they have a most evident cause\nof their condemnation. And this I have before clearly explained, and have\ngiven an example in the devil himself, which shows, that he who sins\nnecessarily, sins no less voluntarily; and also in the elect angels, whose\nwill, though it cannot swerve from what is good, ceases not to be a will.\nBernard also judiciously inculcates the same doctrine, that we are,\ntherefore, the more miserable because our necessity is voluntary; which\nyet constrains us to be so devoted to it, that we are, as we have already\nobserved, the slaves of sin. The second branch of their argument is\nerroneous; because it makes an improper transition from what is voluntary\nto what is free; but we have before evinced, that a thing may be done\nvoluntarily, which yet is not the subject of free choice.\n\nII. They add, that unless both virtues and vices proceed from the free\nchoice of the will, it is not reasonable either that punishments should be\ninflicted, or that rewards should be conferred on man. This argument,\nthough first advanced by Aristotle, yet I grant is used on some occasions\nby Chrysostom and Jerome. That it was familiar to the Pelagians, however,\nJerome himself does not dissemble, but even relates their own words: \u201cIf\nthe grace of God operates in us, then the crown will be given to grace,\nnot to us who labour.\u201d In regard to punishments, I reply, that they are\njustly inflicted on us, from whom the guilt of sin proceeds. For of what\nimportance is it, whether sin be committed with a judgment free or\nenslaved, so it be committed with the voluntary bias of the passions;\nespecially as man is proved to be a sinner, because he is subject to the\nservitude of sin? With respect to rewards of righteousness, where is the\ngreat absurdity, if we confess that they depend rather on the Divine\nbenignity than on our own merits? How often does this recur in Augustine,\n\u201cthat God crowns not our merits, but his own gifts; and that they are\ncalled rewards, not as though they were due to our merits, but because\nthey are retributions to the graces already conferred on us!\u201d They\ndiscover great acuteness in this observation, that there remains no room\nfor merits, if they originate not from free will; but in their opinion of\nthe erroneousness of our sentiment they are greatly mistaken. For\nAugustine hesitates not on all occasions to inculcate as certain, what\nthey think it impious to acknowledge; as where he says, \u201cWhat are the\nmerits of any man? When he comes not with a merited reward, but with free\ngrace, he alone being free and a deliverer from sins, finds all men\nsinners.\u201d Again: \u201cIf you receive what is your due, you must be punished.\nWhat then is done? God has given you not merited punishment, but unmerited\ngrace. If you wish to be excluded from grace, boast your merits.\u201d Again:\n\u201cYou are nothing of yourself; sins are yours, merits belong to God; you\ndeserve punishment; and when you come to be rewarded, he will crown his\nown gifts, not your merits.\u201d In the same sense he elsewhere teaches that\ngrace proceeds not from merit, but merit from grace. And a little after he\nconcludes, that God with his gifts precedes all merits, that thence he may\nelicit his other merits, and gives altogether freely, because he discovers\nnothing as a cause of salvation. But what necessity is there for further\nquotations, when his writings are full of such passages? But the Apostle\nwill even better deliver them from this error, if they will hear from what\norigin he deduces the glory of the saints. \u201cWhom he did predestinate, them\nhe also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he\njustified, them he also glorified.\u201d(679) Why, then, according to the\nApostle, are the faithful crowned? Because by the mercy of the Lord, and\nnot by their own industry, they are elected, and called, and justified.\nFarewell, then, this vain fear, that there will be an end of all merits if\nfree will be overturned. For it is a proof of extreme folly, to be\nterrified and to fly from that to which the Scripture calls us. \u201cIf,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cthou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not\nreceived it?\u201d(680) You see that he divests free will of every thing, with\nthe express design of leaving no room for merits. But yet, the beneficence\nand liberality of God being inexhaustible and various, those graces which\nhe confers on us, because he makes them ours, he rewards, just as if they\nwere our own virtues.\n\nIII. They further allege what may appear to be borrowed from Chrysostom,\nthat if our will has not this ability to choose good or evil, the\npartakers of the same nature must be either all evil or all good. And not\nvery far from this is the writer, whoever he was, of the treatise _On the\nCalling of the Gentiles_, which is circulated under the name of Ambrose,\nwhen he argues, that no man would ever recede from the faith, unless the\ngrace of God left us the condition of mutability. In which it is\nsurprising that such great men were so inconsistent with themselves. For\nhow did it not occur to Chrysostom, that it is the election of God, which\nmakes this difference between men? We are not afraid to allow, what Paul\nvery strenuously asserts, that all, without exception, are depraved and\naddicted to wickedness; but with him we add, that the mercy of God does\nnot permit all to remain in depravity. Therefore, since we all naturally\nlabour under the same disease, they alone recover to whom the Lord has\nbeen pleased to apply his healing hand. The rest, whom he passes by in\nrighteous judgment, putrefy in their corruption till they are entirely\nconsumed. And it is from the same cause, that some persevere to the end,\nand others decline and fall in the midst of their course. For perseverance\nitself also is a gift of God, which he bestows not on all men\npromiscuously, but imparts to whom he pleases. If we inquire the cause of\nthe difference, why some persevere with constancy, and others fail through\ninstability, no other can be found, but that God sustains the former by\nhis power, that they perish not, and does not communicate the same\nstrength to the latter, that they may be examples of inconstancy.\n\nIV. They urge further, that exhortations are given in vain, that the use\nof admonitions is superfluous, and that reproofs are ridiculous, if it be\nnot in the power of the sinner to obey. When similar objections were\nformerly made to Augustine, he was obliged to write his treatise _On\nCorrection and Grace_; in which, though he copiously refutes them, he\ncalls his adversaries to this conclusion: \u201cO man, in the commandment learn\nwhat is your duty: in correction learn, that through your own fault you\nhave it not: in prayer learn whence you may receive what you wish to\nenjoy.\u201d There is nearly the same argument in the treatise _On the Spirit\nand Letter_, in which he maintains that God does not regulate the precepts\nof his law by the ability of men, but when he has commanded what is right,\nfreely gives to his elect ability to perform it. This is not a subject\nthat requires a prolix discussion. First, we are not alone in this cause,\nbut have the support of Christ and all the Apostles. Let our opponents\nconsider how they can obtain the superiority in a contest with such\nantagonists. Does Christ, who declares that without him we can do\nnothing,(681) on that account the less reprehend and punish those who\nwithout him do what is evil? Does he therefore relax in his exhortations\nto every man to practise good works? How severely does Paul censure the\nCorinthians for their neglect of charity!(682) Yet he earnestly prays that\ncharity may be given them by the Lord. In his Epistle to the Romans he\ndeclares that \u201cit is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but\nof God that showeth mercy:\u201d(683) yet afterwards he refrains not from the\nuse of admonition, exhortation, and reproof. Why do they not, therefore,\nremonstrate with the Lord, not to lose his labour in such a manner, by\nrequiring of men those things which he alone can bestow, and punishing\nthose things which are committed for want of his grace? Why do they not\nadmonish Paul to spare those who are unable to will or run without the\nprevious mercy of God, of which they are now destitute? As though truly\nthe Lord has not the best reason for his doctrine, which readily presents\nitself to those who religiously seek it. Paul clearly shows how far\ndoctrine, exhortation, and reproof, can of themselves avail towards\nproducing a change of heart, when he says that \u201cneither is he that\nplanteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but\u201d that the efficacy is\nsolely from \u201cGod that giveth the increase.\u201d(684) Thus we see that Moses\nseverely sanctions the precepts of the law, and the Prophets earnestly\nurge and threaten transgressors; whilst, nevertheless, they acknowledge,\nthat men never begin to be wise till a heart is given them to understand;\nthat it is the peculiar work of God to circumcise the heart, and instead\nof a stony heart to give a heart of flesh; to inscribe his law in men\u2019s\nminds; in a word, to render his doctrine effectual by a renovation of the\nsoul.\n\nV. What, then, it will be inquired, is the use of exhortations? I reply,\nIf the impious despise them with obstinate hearts, they will serve for a\ntestimony against them, when they shall come to the tribunal of the Lord;\nand even in the present state they wound their consciences; for however\nthe most audacious person may deride them, he cannot disapprove of them in\nhis heart. But it will be said, What can a miserable sinner do, if the\nsoftness of heart, which is necessary to obedience, be denied him? I ask,\nWhat excuse can he plead, seeing that he cannot impute the hardness of his\nheart to any one but himself? The impious, therefore, who are ready, if\npossible, to ridicule the Divine precepts and exhortations, are, in spite\nof their own inclinations, confounded by their power. But the principal\nutility should be considered in regard to the faithful, in whom as the\nLord performs all things by his Spirit, so he neglects not the\ninstrumentality of his word, but uses it with great efficacy. Let it be\nallowed, then, as it ought to be, that all the strength of the pious\nconsists in the grace of God, according to this expression of the Prophet:\n\u201cI will give them a new heart, that they may walk in my statutes.\u201d(685)\nBut you will object, Why are they admonished of their duty, and not rather\nleft to the direction of the Spirit? Why are they importuned with\nexhortations, when they cannot make more haste than is produced by the\nimpulse of the Spirit? Why are they chastised, if they have ever deviated\nfrom the right way, seeing that they erred through the necessary infirmity\nof the flesh? I reply, Who art thou, O man, that wouldest impose laws upon\nGod? If it be his will to prepare us by exhortation for the reception of\nthis grace, by which obedience to the exhortation is produced, what have\nyou to censure in this economy? If exhortations and reproofs were of no\nother advantage to the pious, than to convince them of sin, they ought not\non that account to be esteemed wholly useless. Now, since, by the internal\noperation of the Spirit, they are most effectual to inflame the heart with\na love of righteousness, to shake off sloth, to destroy the pleasure and\npoisonous sweetness of iniquity, and, on the contrary, to render it\nhateful and burdensome, who can dare to reject them as superfluous? If any\none would desire a plainer answer, let him take it thus: The operations of\nGod on his elect are twofold\u2014internally, by his Spirit, externally, by his\nword. By his Spirit illuminating their minds and forming their hearts to\nthe love and cultivation of righteousness, he makes them new creatures. By\nhis word he excites them to desire, seek, and obtain the same renovation.\nIn both he displays the efficacy of his power, according to the mode of\nhis dispensation. When he addresses the same word to the reprobate, though\nit produces not their correction, yet he makes it effectual for another\npurpose, that they may be confounded by the testimony of their consciences\nnow, and be rendered more inexcusable at the day of judgment. Thus Christ,\nthough he pronounces that \u201cno man can come to him, except the Father draw\nhim,\u201d and that the elect come when they have \u201cheard and learned of the\nFather,\u201d(686) yet himself neglects not the office of a teacher, but with\nhis own mouth sedulously invites those who need the internal teachings of\nthe Holy Spirit to enable them to derive any benefit from his\ninstructions. With respect to the reprobate, Paul suggests that teaching\nis not useless, because it is to them \u201cthe savour of death unto death,\u201d\nbut \u201ca sweet savour unto God.\u201d(687)\n\nVI. Our adversaries are very laborious in collecting testimonies of\nScripture; and this with a view, since they cannot refute us with their\nweight, to overwhelm us with their number. But as in battles, when armies\ncome to close combat, the weak multitude, whatever pomp and ostentation\nthey may display, are soon defeated and routed, so it will be very easy\nfor us to vanquish them, with all their multitude. For as all the\npassages, which they abuse in their opposition to us, when properly\nclassed and distributed, centre in a very few topics, one answer will be\nsufficient for many of them; it will not be necessary to dwell on a\nparticular explication of each. Their principal argument they derive from\nthe precepts; which they suppose to be so proportioned to our ability,\nthat whatever they can be proved to require, it necessarily follows we are\ncapable of performing. They proceed, therefore, to a particular detail of\nthem, and by them measure the extent of our strength. Either, say they,\nGod mocks us, when he commands holiness, piety, obedience, chastity, love,\nand meekness, and when he forbids impurity, idolatry, unchastity, anger,\nrobbery, pride, and the like; or he requires only such things as we have\npower to perform. Now, almost all the precepts which they collect, may be\ndistributed into three classes. Some require the first conversion to God;\nothers simply relate to the observation of the law; others enjoin\nperseverance in the grace of God already received. Let us first speak of\nthem all in general, and then proceed to the particulars. To represent the\nability of man as co\u00ebxtensive with the precepts of the Divine law, has\nindeed for a long time not been unusual, and has some appearance of\nplausibility; but it has proceeded from the grossest ignorance of the law.\nFor those who think it an enormous crime to say that the observation of\nthe law is impossible, insist on this very cogent argument, that otherwise\nthe law was given in vain. For they argue just as if Paul had never said\nany thing concerning the law. But, pray, what is the meaning of these\nexpressions\u2014\u201cThe law was added because of transgressions;\u201d \u201cby the law is\nthe knowledge of sin;\u201d \u201cthe law worketh wrath;\u201d \u201cthe law entered that the\noffence might abound?\u201d(688) Do they imply a necessity of its being limited\nto our ability, that it might not be given in vain? Do they not rather\nshow that it was placed far beyond our ability, in order to convince us of\nour impotence? According to the definition of the same Apostle, \u201cthe end\nof the commandment is charity.\u201d(689) But when he wishes the minds of the\nThessalonians to \u201cabound in love,\u201d(690) he plainly acknowledges that the\nlaw sounds in our ears in vain, unless God inspire the principles of it\ninto our hearts.\n\nVII. Indeed, if the Scripture taught only that the law is the rule of\nlife, to which our conduct ought to be conformed, I would immediately\naccede to their opinion. But since it carefully and perspicuously states\nto us various uses of the law, it will be best to consider the operation\nof the law in man according to that exposition. As far as relates to the\npresent argument, when it has prescribed any thing to be performed by us,\nit teaches that the power of obedience proceeds from the goodness of God,\nand therefore invites us to pray that it may be given us. If there were\nonly a commandment, and no promise, there would be a trial of the\nsufficiency of our strength to obey the commandment; but since the\ncommands are connected with promises, which declare that we must derive\nnot only subsidiary power, but our whole strength, from the assistance of\nDivine grace, they furnish abundant evidence that we are not only unequal\nto the observation of the law, but altogether incapable of it. Wherefore\nlet them no more urge the proportion of our ability to the precepts of the\nlaw, as though the Lord had regulated the standard of righteousness, which\nhe designed to give in the law, according to the measure of our\nimbecility. It should rather be concluded from the promises, how\nunprepared we are of ourselves, since we stand in such universal need of\nhis grace. But will it, say they, be credited by any, that the Lord\naddressed his law to stocks and stones? I reply, that no one will attempt\nto inculcate such a notion. For neither are the impious stocks or stones,\nwhen they are taught by the law the contrariety of their dispositions to\nGod, and are convicted of guilt by the testimony of their own minds; nor\nthe pious, when, admonished of their own impotence, they have recourse to\nthe grace of God. To this purpose are the following passages from\nAugustine: \u201cGod gives commands which we cannot perform, that we may know\nwhat we ought to request of him. The utility of the precepts is great, if\nonly so much be given to free will, that the grace of God may receive the\ngreater honour. Faith obtains what the law commands; and the law therefore\ncommands, that faith may obtain that which is commanded by the law:\nmoreover God requires faith itself of us, and finds not what he requires,\nunless he has given what he finds.\u201d Again: \u201cLet God give what he enjoins,\nand let him enjoin what he pleases.\u201d\n\nVIII. This will more clearly appear in an examination of the three kinds\nof precepts which we have already mentioned. The Lord, both in the law and\nin the prophets, frequently commands us to be converted to him;(691) but\nthe Prophet, on the other hand, says, \u201cTurn thou me, and I shall be\nturned.\u201d \u201cAfter that I was turned, I repented,\u201d &c.(692) He commands us to\ncircumcise our hearts; but he announces by Moses, that this circumcision\nis the work of his own hand.(693) He frequently requires newness of heart;\nbut elsewhere declares that this is his own gift.(694) \u201cWhat God\npromises,\u201d Augustine says, \u201cwe do not perform ourselves through free will\nor nature; but he does it himself by his grace.\u201d And this is the\nobservation to which he himself assigns the fifth place in his enumeration\nof Ticonius\u2019s rules of Christian doctrine; that we should make a proper\ndistinction between the law and the promises, or between the commandments\nand grace. This may suffice, in answer to those who from the precepts\ninfer an ability in man to obey them, that they may destroy the grace of\nGod, by which those very precepts are fulfilled. The precepts of the\nsecond class are simple, enjoining on us the worship of God, constant\nsubmission to his will, observance of his commands, and adherence to his\ndoctrine. But there are innumerable passages, which prove that the highest\ndegree of righteousness, sanctity, piety, and purity, capable of being\nattained, is his own gift. Of the third class is that exhortation of Paul\nand Barnabas to the faithful, mentioned by Luke, \u201cto continue in the grace\nof God.\u201d(695) But whence the grace of perseverance should be sought, the\nsame Apostle informs us, when he says, \u201cFinally, my brethren, be strong in\nthe Lord.\u201d(696) In another place he cautions us to \u201cgrieve not the Holy\nSpirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption.\u201d(697) But\nbecause what he there requires could not be performed by men, he prays for\nthe Thessalonians, \u201cthat our God would count them worthy of this calling,\nand fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith\nwith power.\u201d(698) Thus, also, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,\ntreating of alms, he frequently commends their benevolent and pious\ndisposition;(699) yet a little after he gives thanks to God for having\ninclined the heart of Titus to \u201caccept\u201d or undertake \u201cthe exhortation.\u201d If\nTitus could not even use his own tongue to exhort others without having\nbeen prompted by God, how should others have been inclined to act, unless\nGod himself had directed their hearts?\n\nIX. Our more subtle adversaries cavil at all these testimonies, because\nthere is no impediment, they say, that prevents our exerting our own\nability, and God assisting our weak efforts. They adduce also passages\nfrom the Prophets, where the accomplishment of our conversion seems to be\ndivided equally between God and us. \u201cTurn ye unto me, and I will turn unto\nyou.\u201d(700) What assistance we receive from the Lord has already been\nshown, and needs not to be repeated here. I wish only this single point to\nbe conceded to me, that it is in vain to infer our possession of ability\nto fulfil the law from God\u2019s command to us to obey it; since it is\nevident, that for the performance of all the Divine precepts, the grace of\nthe Legislator is both necessary for us, and promised to us; and hence it\nfollows, that at least more is required of us than we are capable of\nperforming. Nor is it possible for any cavils to explain away that passage\nof Jeremiah, which assures us, that the covenant of God, made with his\nancient people, was frustrated because it was merely a literal one;(701)\nand that it can only be confirmed by the influence of the Spirit, who\nforms the heart to obedience. Nor does their error derive any support from\nthis passage: \u201cTurn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you.\u201d For this\ndenotes, not that turning of God in which he renovates our hearts to\nrepentance, but that in which he declares his benevolence and kindness by\nexternal prosperity; as by adversity he sometimes manifests his\ndispleasure. When the people of Israel, therefore, after having been\nharassed with miseries and calamities under various forms, complained that\nGod was departed from them, he replies that his benignity will not fail\nthem if they return to rectitude of life, and to himself, who is the\nstandard of righteousness. The passage, then, is miserably perverted, when\nit is made to represent the work of conversion as divided between God and\nmen. We have observed the greater brevity on these points, because it will\nbe a more suitable place for this argument when we treat of the Law.\n\nX. The second description of arguments is nearly allied to the first. They\nallege the promises, in which God covenants with our will; such as, \u201cSeek\ngood, and not evil, that ye may live.\u201d \u201cIf ye be willing and obedient, ye\nshall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be\ndevoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.\u201d(702)\nAgain: \u201cIf thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then\nshalt thou not remove.\u201d \u201cIf thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice\nof the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I\ncommand thee this day, the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all\nnations of the earth;\u201d(703) and other similar passages. They consider it\nan absurdity and mockery, that the benefits which the Lord offers in the\npromises are referred to our will, unless it be in our power either to\nconfirm or to frustrate them. And truly it is very easy to amplify this\nsubject with eloquent complaints, that we are cruelly mocked by the Lord,\nwhen he announces that his benignity depends on our will, if that will be\nnot in our own power; that this would be egregious liberality in God, to\npresent his benefits to us in such a manner, that we should have no power\nto enjoy them; and that there must be a strange certainty in his promises,\nif they depend on a thing impossible, so that they can never be fulfilled.\nConcerning promises of this kind, to which a condition is annexed, we\nshall speak in another place, and evince that there is no absurdity in the\nimpossibility of their completion. With respect to the present question, I\ndeny that God is cruel or insincere to us, when he invites us to merit his\nfavours, though he knows us to be altogether incapable of doing this. For\nas the promises are offered equally to the faithful and to the impious,\nthey have their use with them both. As by the precepts God disturbs the\nconsciences of the impious, that they may not enjoy too much pleasure in\nsin without any recollection of his judgments, so in the promises he calls\nthem to attest how unworthy they are of his kindness. For who can deny\nthat it is most equitable and proper for the Lord to bless those who\nworship him, and severely to punish the despisers of his majesty? God\nacts, therefore, in a right and orderly manner, when, addressing the\nimpious, who are bound with the fetters of sin, he adds to the promises\nthis condition, that when they shall have departed from their wickedness,\nthey shall then, and not till then, enjoy his favours; even for this sole\nreason, that they may know that they are deservedly excluded from those\nbenefits which belong to the worshippers of the true God. On the other\nhand, since he designs by all means to stimulate the faithful to implore\nhis grace, it will not be at all strange, if he tries in his promises\nalso, what we have shown he does with considerable effect in his precepts.\nBeing instructed by the precepts concerning the will of God, we are\napprized of our misery, in having our hearts so completely averse to it;\nand are at the same time excited to invoke his Spirit, that we may be\ndirected by him into the right way. But because our sluggishness is not\nsufficiently roused by the precepts, God adds his promises, to allure us\nby their sweetness to the love of his commands. Now, in proportion to our\nincreased love of righteousness will be the increase of our fervour in\nseeking the grace of God. See how, in these addresses, \u201cIf ye be willing,\u201d\n\u201cIf ye be obedient,\u201d the Lord neither attributes to us an unlimited power\nto will and to obey, nor yet mocks us on account of our impotence.\n\nXI. The third class of arguments also has a great affinity with the\npreceding. For they produce passages in which God reproaches an ungrateful\npeople, that it was wholly owing to their own fault that they did not\nreceive blessings of all kinds from his indulgent hand. Of this kind are\nthe following passages: \u201cThe Amalekites and the Canaanites are there\nbefore you, and ye shall fall by the sword; because ye are turned away\nfrom the Lord.\u201d(704) \u201cBecause I called you, but ye answered not, therefore\nwill I do unto this house as I have done to Shiloh.\u201d(705) Again: \u201cThis is\na nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth\ncorrection: the Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his\nwrath.\u201d(706) Again: \u201cThey obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law;\nthey have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore\nthou hast caused all this evil to come upon them.\u201d(707) How, say they,\ncould such reproaches be applicable to those who might immediately reply,\nIt is true that we desired prosperity and dreaded adversity; but our not\nobeying the Lord, or hearkening to his voice, in order to obtain good and\nto avoid evil, has been owing to our want of liberty, and subjection to\nthe dominion of sin. It is in vain, therefore, to reproach us with evils,\nwhich we had no power to avoid. In answer to this, leaving the pretext of\nnecessity, which is but a weak and futile plea, I ask whether they can\nexculpate themselves from all guilt. For if they are convicted of any\nfault, the Lord justly reproaches them with their perverseness, as the\ncause of their not having experienced the advantage of his clemency. Let\nthem answer, then, if they can deny that their own perverse will was the\ncause of their obstinacy. If they find the source of the evil within\nthemselves, why do they so earnestly inquire after extraneous causes, that\nthey may not appear to have been the authors of their own ruin? But if it\nbe true that sinners are deprived of the favours of God, and chastised\nwith his punishments, for their own sin, and only for their own, there is\ngreat reason why they should hear those reproaches from his mouth; that if\nthey obstinately persist in their crimes, they may learn in their\ncalamities rather to accuse and detest their iniquity, than to charge God\nwith unrighteous cruelty; that if they have not cast off all docility,\nthey may become weary of their sins, the demerits of which they see to be\nmisery and ruin, and may return into the good way, acknowledging in a\nserious confession the very thing for which the Lord rebukes them. And\nthat those reproofs, which are quoted from the Prophets, have produced\nthis beneficial effect on the faithful, is evident from the solemn prayer\nof Daniel, given us in his ninth chapter. Of the former use of them we\nfind an example in the Jews, to whom Jeremiah is commanded to declare the\ncause of their miseries; though nothing could befall them, otherwise than\nthe Lord had foretold. \u201cThou shalt speak all these words unto them; but\nthey will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they\nwill not answer thee.\u201d(708) For what purpose, then, it will be asked, did\nthey speak to persons that were deaf? It was in order that, in spite of\ntheir disinclination and aversion, they might know what was declared to\nthem to be true; that it was an abominable sacrilege to transfer to God\nthe guilt of their crimes, which belonged solely to themselves. With these\nfew solutions, we may very easily despatch the immense multitude of\ntestimonies, which the enemies of the grace of God are accustomed to\ncollect, both from the precepts of the law, and from the expostulations\ndirected to transgressors of it, in order to establish the idol of free\nwill. In one psalm the Jews are stigmatized as \u201ca stubborn and rebellious\ngeneration, a generation that set not their heart aright.\u201d(709) In\nanother, the Psalmist exhorts the men of his age to \u201charden not their\nhearts;\u201d(710) which implies, that all the guilt of rebellion lies in the\nperverseness of men. But it is absurd to infer from this passage that the\nheart is equally flexible to either side; whereas \u201cthe preparation\u201d of it\nis \u201cfrom the Lord.\u201d(711) The Psalmist says, \u201cI have inclined my heart to\nperform thy statutes;\u201d(712) because he had devoted himself to the service\nof God without any reluctance, but with a cheerful readiness of mind. Yet\nhe boasts not of being himself the author of this inclination, which in\nthe same psalm he acknowledges to be the gift of God.(713) We should\nremember, therefore, the admonition of Paul, when he commands the faithful\nto \u201cwork out\u201d their \u201cown salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God\nwhich worketh in\u201d them \u201cboth to will and to do.\u201d(714) He assigns them a\npart to perform, that they may not indulge themselves in carnal\nnegligence; but by inculcating \u201cfear and trembling,\u201d he humbles them, and\nreminds them that this very thing, which they are commanded to do, is the\npeculiar work of God. In this he plainly suggests that the faithful act,\nif I may be allowed the expression, passively, inasmuch as they are\nfurnished with strength from heaven, that they may arrogate nothing at all\nto themselves. Wherefore, when Peter exhorts us to \u201cadd to\u201d our \u201cfaith,\nvirtue,\u201d(715) he does not allot us an under part to be performed, as\nthough we could do any thing separately, of ourselves; he only arouses the\nindolence of the flesh, by which faith itself is frequently extinguished.\nTo the same purpose is the exhortation of Paul: \u201cQuench not the\nSpirit;\u201d(716) for slothfulness gradually prevails over the faithful,\nunless it be corrected. But if any one should infer from this, that it is\nat his own option to cherish the light offered him, his ignorance will\neasily be refuted; since this diligence which Paul requires, proceeds only\nfrom God. For we are also frequently commanded to \u201ccleanse ourselves from\nall filthiness,\u201d(717) whilst the Spirit claims the office of sanctifying\nus exclusively to himself. In short, that what properly belongs to God is,\nby concession, transferred to us, is plain from the words of John: \u201cHe\nthat is begotten of God, keepeth himself.\u201d(718) The preachers of free will\nlay hold of this expression, as though we were saved partly by the Divine\npower, partly by our own; as though we did not receive from heaven this\nvery preservation which the Apostle mentions. Wherefore also Christ prays\nthat his Father would \u201ckeep\u201d us \u201cfrom evil;\u201d(719) and we know that the\npious, in their warfare against Satan, obtain the victory by no other arms\nthan those which are furnished by God. Therefore Peter, having enjoined us\nto \u201cpurify\u201d our \u201csouls, in obeying the truth,\u201d immediately adds, as a\ncorrection, \u201cthrough the Spirit.\u201d(720) Finally, the impotence of all human\nstrength in the spiritual conflict is briefly demonstrated by John when he\nsays, \u201cWhosoever is born of God cannot sin; for his seed remaineth in\nhim:\u201d(721) and in another place he adds the reason, that \u201cthis is the\nvictory that overcometh the world, even our faith.\u201d(722)\n\nXII. There is also a testimony cited from the law of Moses, which appears\ndirectly repugnant to our solution. For, after having published the law,\nhe makes the following solemn declaration to the people: \u201cThis\ncommandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee,\nneither is it far off: it is not in heaven: but the word is very nigh unto\nthee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.\u201d(723) If\nthese expressions be understood merely of the precepts, I grant that they\nhave much weight in the present argument. For although we might easily\nelude their force, by saying that they treat of the facility and\npromptitude, not of observance, but of knowledge, yet still perhaps they\nmight leave some doubt. But the Apostle, in whose expositions there is no\nambiguity, removes all our doubts, by affirming that Moses here spake of\nthe doctrine of the gospel.(724) But if any one should obstinately\ncontend, that Paul has violently perverted the passage from its genuine\nmeaning, by applying it to the gospel, although his presumption could not\nbe acquitted of impiety, yet there is enough to refute him, independently\nof the authority of the Apostle. For, if Moses spoke only of the precepts,\nhe was deceiving the people with the vainest confidence. For would they\nnot have precipitated themselves into ruin, if they had attempted the\nobservance of the law in their own strength, as a thing of no difficulty?\nWhat, then, becomes of the very obvious facility with which the law may be\nobserved, when there appears no access to it but over a fatal precipice?\nWherefore nothing is more certain, than that Moses in these words\ncomprehended the covenant of mercy, which he had promulgated together with\nthe precepts of the law. For in a preceding verse he had taught that our\nhearts must be circumcised by God, in order that we may love him.(725)\nTherefore he placed this facility, of which he afterwards speaks, not in\nthe strength of man, but in the assistance and protection of the Holy\nSpirit, who powerfully accomplishes his work in our infirmity. However,\nthe passage is not to be understood simply of the precepts, but rather of\nthe promises of the gospel, which are so far from maintaining an ability\nin us to obtain righteousness, that they prove us to be utterly destitute\nof it. Paul, considering the same, proves by this testimony that salvation\nis proposed to us in the gospel, not under that hard, difficult, and\nimpossible condition, prescribed to us in the law, which pronounces it\nattainable only by those who have fulfilled all the commandments, but\nunder a condition easily and readily to be performed. Therefore this\ntestimony contributes nothing to support the liberty of the human will.\n\nXIII. Some other passages also are frequently objected, which show that\nGod sometimes tries men by withdrawing the assistance of his grace, and\nwaits to see what course they will pursue; as in Hosea: \u201cI will go and\nreturn to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my\nface.\u201d(726) It would be ridiculous, they say, for the Lord to consider,\nwhether Israel would seek his face, unless their minds were flexible,\ncapable of inclining either way, according to their own pleasure; as if it\nwere not very common for God, in the Prophets, to represent himself as\ndespising and rejecting his people, till they should amend their lives.\nBut what will our adversaries infer from such threats? If they maintain,\nthat those who are deserted by God, are capable of converting themselves,\nthey oppose the uniform declarations of Scripture. If they acknowledge\nthat the grace of God is necessary to conversion, what is their\ncontroversy with us? But they will reply, that they concede its necessity\nin such a sense as to maintain that man still retains some power. How do\nthey prove it? Certainly not from this or any similar passages. For it is\none thing to depart from a man, to observe what he will do when forsaken\nand left to himself, and another to assist his little strength in\nproportion to his imbecility. What, then, it will be inquired, is implied\nin such forms of expression? I reply, that the import of them is just as\nif God had said, Since admonitions, exhortations, and reproofs, produce no\ngood effect on this rebellious people, I will withdraw myself for a little\nwhile, and silently leave them to affliction. I will see whether, at some\nfuture period, after a series of calamities, they will remember me, and\nseek my face. The departure of the Lord signifies the removal of his word.\nHis observing what men will do, signifies his concealing himself in\nsilence, and exercising them for a season with various afflictions. He\ndoes both to humble us the more; for we should sooner be confounded than\ncorrected with the scourges of adversity, unless he rendered us docile by\nhis Spirit. Now, when the Lord, offended, and, as it were, wearied by our\nextreme obstinacy, leaves us for a time, by the removal of his word, in\nwhich he is accustomed to manifest his presence with us, and makes the\nexperiment, what we shall do in his absence,\u2014it is falsely inferred from\nthis, that there is some power of free will, which he observes and proves;\nsince he acts in this manner with no other design than to bring us to a\nsense and acknowledgment of our own nothingness.\n\nXIV. They argue also from the manner of expression which is invariably\nobserved, both in the Scripture and in the common conversation of mankind.\nFor good actions are called our own, and we are said to perform what is\nholy and pleasing to the Lord, as well as to commit sins. But if sins be\njustly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, certainly some share\nought to be, for the same reason, assigned to us also in works of\nrighteousness. For it would be absurd that we should be said to do those\nthings, to the performance of which, being incapable of any exertion of\nour own, we were impelled by God, as so many stones. Wherefore, though we\nallow the grace of God the pre\u00ebminence, yet these expressions indicate\nthat our own endeavours hold at least the second place. If it were only\nalleged, that good works are called our own, I would reply, that the bread\nwhich we pray to God to give us, is called ours. What will they prove by\nthis term, but that what otherwise by no means belongs to us, becomes ours\nthrough the benignity and gratuitous munificence of God? Therefore let\nthem either ridicule the same absurdity in the Lord\u2019s prayer, or no longer\nesteem it ridiculous, that good works are denominated ours, in which we\nhave no propriety but from the liberality of God. But there is rather more\nforce in what follows; that the Scripture frequently affirms that we\nourselves worship God, work righteousness, obey the law, and perform good\nworks. These being the proper offices of the understanding and will, how\ncould they justly be referred to the Spirit, and at the same time be\nattributed to us, if there were not some union of our exertions with the\ngrace of God? We shall easily extricate ourselves from these objections,\nif we properly consider the manner in which the Spirit of the Lord\noperates in the saints. The similitude with which they try to cast an\nodium on our sentiments, is quite foreign to the subject; for who is so\nsenseless as to suppose that there is no difference between impelling a\nman, and throwing a stone? Nor does any such consequence follow from our\ndoctrine. We rank among the natural powers of man, approving, rejecting;\nwilling, nilling; attempting, resisting; that is, a power to approve\nvanity, and to reject true excellence; to will what is evil, to refuse\nwhat is good; to attempt iniquity, and to resist righteousness. What\nconcern has the Lord in this? If it be his will to use this depravity as\nan instrument of his wrath, he directs and appoints it according to his\npleasure, in order to execute his good work by means of a wicked hand.\nShall we, then, compare a wicked man who is thus subservient to the Divine\npower, while he only studies to gratify his own corrupt inclination, to a\nstone which is hurled by an extrinsic impulse, and driven along without\nany motion, sense, or will of its own? We perceive what a vast difference\nthere is. But how does the Lord operate in good men, to whom the question\nprincipally relates? When he erects his kingdom within them, he by his\nSpirit restrains their will, that it may not be hurried away by unsteady\nand violent passions, according to the propensity of nature; that it may\nbe inclined to holiness and righteousness, he bends, composes, forms, and\ndirects it according to the rule of his own righteousness; that it may not\nstagger or fall, he establishes and confirms it by the power of his\nSpirit. For which reason Augustine says, \u201cYou will reply to me, Then we\nare actuated; we do not act. Yes, you both act and are actuated; and you\nact well, when you are actuated by that which is good. The Spirit of God,\nwho actuates you, assists those who act, and calls himself a helper,\nbecause you also perform something.\u201d In the first clause he inculcates\nthat the agency of man is not destroyed by the influence of the Spirit;\nbecause the will, which is guided to aspire to what is good, belongs to\nhis nature. But the inference which he immediately subjoins, from the term\n_help_, that we also perform something, we should not understand in such a\nsense, as though he attributed any thing to us independently; but in order\nto avoid encouraging us in indolence, he reconciles the Divine agency with\nours in this way; that to will is from nature, to will what is good is\nfrom grace. Therefore he had just before said, \u201cWithout the assistance of\nGod, we shall be not only unable to conquer, but even to contend.\u201d\n\nXV. Hence it appears that the grace of God, in the sense in which this\nword is used when we treat of regeneration, is the rule of the Spirit for\ndirecting and governing the human will. He cannot govern it unless he\ncorrect, reform, and renovate it; whence we say that the commencement of\nregeneration is an abolition of what is from ourselves; nor unless he also\nexcite, actuate, impel, support, and restrain it; whence we truly assert,\nthat all the actions which proceed from this are entirely of the Spirit.\nAt the same time, we fully admit the truth of what Augustine teaches, that\nthe will is not destroyed by grace, but rather repaired; for these two\nthings are perfectly consistent\u2014that the human will may be said to be\nrepaired, when, by the correction of its depravity and perverseness, it is\ndirected according to the true standard of righteousness; and also that a\nnew will may be said to be created in man, because the natural will is so\nvitiated and corrupted, that it needs to be formed entirely anew. Now,\nthere is no reason why we may not justly be said to perform that which the\nSpirit of God performs in us, although our own will contributes nothing of\nitself, independently of his grace. And, therefore, we should remember\nwhat we have before cited from Augustine, that many persons labour in vain\nto find in the human will some good, properly its own. For whatever\nmixture men study to add from the power of free will to the grace of God,\nis only a corruption of it; just as if any one should dilute good wine\nwith dirty or bitter water. But although whatever good there is in the\nhuman will, proceeds wholly from the internal influence of the Spirit, yet\nbecause we have a natural faculty of willing, we are, not without reason,\nsaid to do those things, the praise of which God justly claims to himself;\nfirst, because whatever God does in us, becomes ours by his benignity,\nprovided we do not apprehend it to originate from ourselves; secondly,\nbecause the understanding is ours, the will is ours, and the effort is\nours, which are all directed by him to that which is good.\n\nXVI. The other testimonies, which they rake together from every quarter,\nwill not much embarrass even persons of moderate capacities, who have well\ndigested the answers already given. They quote this passage from Genesis:\n\u201cUnto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him;\u201d(727) or, as\nthey would translate the words, \u201cSubject to thee shall be its appetite,\nand thou shalt rule over it;\u201d which they explain to relate to sin, as\nthough the Lord promised Cain, that the power of sin should not obtain\ndominion over his mind, if he would labour to overcome it. But we say that\nit is more agreeable to the tenor of the context, to understand it to be\nspoken concerning Abel. For the design of God in it is to prove the\niniquity of that envy, which Cain had conceived against his brother. This\nhe does by two reasons: first, that it was in vain for him to meditate\ncrimes in order to excel his brother in the sight of God, with whom no\nhonour is given but to righteousness; secondly, that he was extremely\nungrateful for the favours God had already conferred on him, since he\ncould not bear his brother, even though subject to his authority. But that\nwe may not appear to adopt this explanation, merely because the other is\nunfavourable to our tenets, let us admit that God spake concerning sin. If\nit be so, then what the Lord there declares, is either promised or\ncommanded by him. If it be a command, we have already demonstrated that it\naffords no proof of the power of men: if it be a promise, where is the\ncompletion of the promise, seeing that Cain fell under the dominion of\nsin, over which he ought to have prevailed? They will say, that the\npromise includes a tacit condition, as though it had been declared to him\nthat he should obtain the victory if he would contend for it; but who can\nadmit these subterfuges? For if this dominion be referred to sin, the\nspeech is doubtless a command, expressive, not of our ability, but of our\nduty, which remains our duty even though it exceed our ability. But the\nsubject itself, and grammatical propriety, require a comparison to be made\nbetween Cain and Abel; in which the elder brother would not have been\nplaced below the younger, if he had not degraded himself by his own\nwickedness.\n\nXVII. They adduce also the testimony of the Apostle, who says, that \u201cit is\nnot of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth\nmercy;\u201d(728) whence they conclude, that there is something in the will and\nendeavour, which, though ineffectual of itself, is rendered successful by\nthe assistance of the Divine mercy. But if they would soberly examine the\nsubject there treated by Paul, they would not so inconsiderately pervert\nthis passage. I know that they can allege the suffrages of Origen and\nJerome in defence of their exposition; and in opposition to them, I could\nproduce that of Augustine. But their opinions are of no importance to us\nif we can ascertain what was the meaning of Paul. He is there teaching,\nthat salvation is provided for them alone, whom the Lord favours with his\nmercy; but that ruin and perdition await all those whom he has not chosen.\nHe had shown, by the example of Pharaoh, the condition of the reprobate;\nand had confirmed the certainty of gratuitous election by the testimony of\nMoses: \u201cI will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.\u201d His conclusion is,\nthat \u201cit is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God\nthat showeth mercy.\u201d If this be understood to imply that our will and\nendeavour are not sufficient, because they are not equal to so great a\nwork, Paul has expressed himself with great impropriety. Away, therefore,\nwith these sophisms: \u201cIt is not of him that willeth, nor of him that\nrunneth;\u201d therefore there is some willing and some running. For the\nmeaning of Paul is more simple\u2014It is neither our willing nor our running,\nwhich procures for us a way of salvation, but solely the mercy of God. For\nhe expresses here the same sentiment as he does to Titus, when he says,\n\u201cthat the kindness and love of God towards man appeared, not by works of\nrighteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy.\u201d(729) The\nvery persons, who argue that Paul, in denying that it is of him that\nwilleth or of him that runneth, implies that there is some willing and\nsome running, would not allow me to use the same mode of reasoning, that\nwe have done some good works, because Paul denies that we have obtained\nthe favour of God by any works which we have done. But if they perceive a\nflaw in this argumentation, let them open their eyes, and they will\nperceive a similar fallacy in their own. For the argument on which\nAugustine rests the dispute is unanswerable: \u201cIf it be said, that it is\nnot of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, merely because neither\nour willing nor our running is sufficient, it may, on the contrary, be\nretorted, that it is not of the mercy of God, because that does not act\nalone.\u201d(730) The latter position being absurd, Augustine justly concludes\nthe meaning of this passage to be, that there is no good will in man,\nunless it be prepared by the Lord; not but that we ought to will and to\nrun, but because God works in us both the one and the other. With similar\nwant of judgment, some pervert this declaration of Paul, \u201cWe are labourers\ntogether with God;\u201d(731) which, without doubt, is restricted solely to\nministers, who are denominated \u201cworkers with him,\u201d not that they\ncontribute any thing of themselves, but because God makes use of their\nagency, after he has qualified them and furnished them with the necessary\ntalents.\n\nXVIII. They produce a passage from Ecclesiasticus, which is well known to\nbe a book of doubtful authority. But though we should not reject it,\nwhich, nevertheless, if we chose, we might justly do, what testimony does\nit afford in support of free will? The writer says, that man, as soon as\nhe was created, was left in the power of his own will; that precepts were\ngiven to him, which if he kept, he should also be kept by them; that he\nhad life and death, good and evil, set before him; and that whatever he\ndesired, would be given him.(732) Let it be granted, that man at his\ncreation was endowed with a power of choosing life or death. What if we\nreply, that he has lost it? I certainly do not intend to contradict\nSolomon, who asserts that \u201cGod hath made man upright; but they have sought\nout many inventions.\u201d(733) But man, by his degeneracy, having shipwrecked\nboth himself and all his excellences, whatever is attributed to his\nprimitive state, it does not immediately follow that it belongs to his\nvitiated and degenerated nature. Therefore I reply, not only to them, but\nalso to Ecclesiasticus himself, whoever he be: If you design to teach man\nto seek within himself a power to attain salvation, your authority is not\nso great in our estimation as to obtain even the smallest degree of\ncredit, in opposition to the undoubted word of God. But if you only aim to\nrepress the malignity of the flesh, which vainly attempts to vindicate\nitself by transferring its crimes to God, and you therefore reply, that\nman was originally endued with rectitude, from which it is evident that he\nwas the cause of his own ruin, I readily assent to it; provided we also\nagree in this, that through his own guilt he is now despoiled of those\nornaments with which God invested him at the beginning; and so unite in\nconfessing, that in his present situation he needs not an advocate, but a\nphysician.\n\nXIX. But there is nothing which our adversaries have more frequently in\ntheir mouths, than the parable of Christ concerning the traveller, who was\nleft by robbers in the road half dead.(734) I know it is the common\nopinion of almost all writers, that the calamity of the human race is\nrepresented under the type of this traveller. Hence they argue, that man\nis not so mutilated by the violence of sin and the devil, but that he\nstill retains some relics of his former excellences, since he is said to\nhave been left only half dead; for what becomes of the remaining portion\nof life, unless there remain some rectitude both of reason and will? In\nthe first place, what could they say, if I refused to admit their\nallegory? For there is no doubt but that this interpretation, invented by\nthe fathers, is foreign to the genuine sense of our Lord\u2019s discourse.\nAllegories ought to be extended no further than they are supported by the\nauthority of Scripture; for they are far from affording of themselves a\nsufficient foundation for any doctrines. Nor is there any want of\narguments by which, if I chose, I could completely confute this erroneous\nnotion; for the word of God does not leave man in the possession of a\nproportion of life, but teaches, that as far as respects happiness of\nlife, he is wholly dead. Paul, when speaking of our redemption, says, not\nthat we were recovered when half dead, but that \u201ceven when we were dead,\nwe were raised up.\u201d He calls not on the half dead, but on those who are in\nthe grave, sleeping the sleep of death, to receive the illumination of\nChrist.(735) And the Lord himself speaks in a similar manner, when he\nsays, that \u201cthe hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the\nvoice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.\u201d(736) With what\nface can they oppose a slight allusion against so many positive\nexpressions? Yet let this allegory even be admitted as a clear testimony;\nwhat will it enable them to extort from us? Man, they will say, is but\nhalf dead; therefore he has some faculty remaining entire. I grant that he\nhas a mind capable of understanding, though it attains not to heavenly and\nspiritual wisdom; he has some idea of virtue; he has some sense of the\nDeity, though he acquires not the true knowledge of God. But what is to be\nconcluded from all this? It certainly does not disprove the assertion of\nAugustine, which has received the general approbation even of the schools,\nthat man, since his fall, has been deprived of the gifts of grace on which\nsalvation depends; but that the natural ones are corrupted and polluted.\nLet us hold this, then, as an undoubted truth, which no opposition can\never shake\u2014that the mind of man is so completely alienated from the\nrighteousness of God, that it conceives, desires, and undertakes every\nthing that is impious, perverse, base, impure, and flagitious; that his\nheart is so thoroughly infected by the poison of sin, that it cannot\nproduce any thing but what is corrupt; and that if at any time men do any\nthing apparently good, yet the mind always remains involved in hypocrisy\nand fallacious obliquity, and the heart enslaved by its inward\nperverseness.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI. Redemption For Lost Man To Be Sought In Christ.\n\n\nThe whole human race having perished in the person of Adam, our original\nexcellence and dignity, which we have noticed, so far from being\nadvantageous to us, only involves us in greater ignominy, till God, who\ndoes not acknowledge the pollution and corruption of man by sin to be his\nwork, appears as a Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.\nTherefore, since we are fallen from life into death, all that knowledge of\nGod as a Creator, of which we have been treating, would be useless, unless\nit were succeeded by faith exhibiting God to us as a Father in Christ.\nThis, indeed, was the genuine order of nature, that the fabric of the\nworld should be a school in which we might learn piety, and thence be\nconducted to eternal life and perfect felicity. But since the fall,\nwhithersoever we turn our eyes, the curse of God meets us on every side,\nwhich, whilst it seizes innocent creatures and involves them in our guilt,\nmust necessarily overwhelm our souls with despair. For though God is\npleased still to manifest his paternal kindness to us in various ways, yet\nwe cannot, from a contemplation of the world, conclude that he is our\nFather, when our conscience disturbs us within, and convinces us that our\nsins afford a just reason why God should abandon us, and no longer esteem\nus as his children. We are also chargeable with stupidity and ingratitude;\nfor our minds, being blinded, do not perceive the truth; and all our\nsenses being corrupted, we wickedly defraud God of his glory. We must\ntherefore subscribe to the declaration of Paul: \u201cFor after that in the\nwisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the\nfoolishness of preaching to save them that believe.\u201d(737) What he\ndenominates the wisdom of God, is this magnificent theatre of heaven and\nearth, which is replete with innumerable miracles, and from the\ncontemplation of which we ought wisely to acquire the knowledge of God.\nBut because we have made so little improvement in this way, he recalls us\nto the faith of Christ, which is despised by unbelievers on account of its\napparent folly. Wherefore, though the preaching of the cross is not\nagreeable to human reason, we ought, nevertheless, to embrace it with all\nhumility, if we desire to return to God our Creator, from whom we have\nbeen alienated, and to have him reassume the character of our Father.\nSince the fall of the first man, no knowledge of God, without the\nMediator, has been available to salvation. For Christ speaks not of his\nown time only, but comprehends all ages, when he says that \u201cthis is life\neternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast\nsent.\u201d(738) And this aggravates the stupidity of those who set open the\ngate of heaven to all unbelievers and profane persons, without the grace\nof Christ, whom the Scripture universally represents as the only door of\nentrance into salvation. But if any man would restrict this declaration of\nChrist to the period of the first promulgation of the gospel, we are\nprepared with a refutation. For it has been a common opinion, in all ages\nand nations, that those who are alienated from God, and pronounced\naccursed, and children of wrath, cannot please him without a\nreconciliation. Here add the answer of Christ to the woman of Samaria: \u201cYe\nworship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the\nJews.\u201d(739) In these words he at once condemns all the religions of the\nGentiles as false, and assigns a reason for it; because under the law the\nRedeemer was promised only to the chosen people; whence it follows that no\nworship has ever been acceptable to God, unless it had respect to Christ.\nHence also Paul affirms that all the Gentiles were without God, and\ndestitute of the hope of life.(740) Now, as John teaches us that life was\nfrom the beginning in Christ, and that the whole world are fallen from\nit,(741) it is necessary to return to that fountain; and therefore Christ\nasserts himself to be the life, as he is the author of the propitiation.\nAnd, indeed, the celestial inheritance belongs exclusively to the children\nof God. But it is very unreasonable that they should be considered in the\nplace and order of his children, who have not been engrafted into the body\nof his only begotten Son. And John plainly declares that \u201cthey who believe\nin his name become the sons of God.\u201d(742) But as it is not my design in\nthis place to treat professedly of faith in Christ, these cursory hints\nshall at present suffice.\n\nII. Therefore God never showed himself propitious to his ancient people,\nnor afforded them any hope of his favour, without a Mediator. I forbear to\nspeak of the legal sacrifices, by which the faithful were plainly and\npublicly instructed that salvation was to be sought solely in that\nexpiation, which has been accomplished by Christ alone. I only assert,\nthat the happiness of the Church has always been founded on the person of\nChrist. For though God comprehended in his covenant all the posterity of\nAbraham, yet Paul judiciously reasons, that Christ is in reality that Seed\nin whom all the nations were to be blessed;(743) since we know that the\nnatural descendants of that patriarch were not reckoned as his seed. For,\nto say nothing of Ishmael and others, what was the cause, that of the two\nsons of Isaac, the twin\u2010brothers Esau and Jacob, even when they were yet\nunborn, one should be chosen and the other rejected? How came it to pass\nthat the first\u2010born was rejected, and that the younger obtained his\nbirthright? How came the majority of the people to be disinherited? It is\nevident, therefore, that the seed of Abraham is reckoned principally in\none person, and that the promised salvation was not manifested till the\ncoming of Christ, whose office it is to collect what had been scattered\nabroad. The first adoption, therefore, of the chosen people, depended on\nthe grace of the Mediator; which, though it is not so plainly expressed by\nMoses, yet appears to have been generally well known to all the pious. For\nbefore the appointment of any king in the nation, Hannah, the mother of\nSamuel, speaking of the felicity of the faithful, thus expressed herself\nin her song: \u201cThe Lord shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the\nhorn of his anointed.\u201d(744) Her meaning in these words is, that God will\nbless his Church. And to this agrees the oracle, which is soon after\nintroduced: \u201cI will raise me up a faithful priest, and he shall walk\nbefore mine anointed.\u201d And there is no doubt that it was the design of the\nheavenly Father to exhibit in David and his posterity a lively image of\nChrist. With a design to exhort the pious, therefore, to the fear of God,\nhe enjoins them to \u201ckiss the Son;\u201d(745) which agrees with this declaration\nof the gospel: \u201cHe that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the\nFather.\u201d(746) Therefore, though the kingdom was weakened by the revolt of\nthe ten tribes, yet the covenant, which God had made with David and his\nsuccessors, could not but stand, as he also declared by the Prophets: \u201cI\nwill not rend away all the kingdom, but will give one tribe to thy son,\nfor David my servant\u2019s sake, and for Jerusalem\u2019s sake which I have\nchosen.\u201d(747) This is repeated again and again. It is also expressly\nadded, \u201cI will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever.\u201d(748)\nAt a little distance of time it is said, \u201cFor David\u2019s sake did the Lord\nhis God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to\nestablish Jerusalem.\u201d(749) Even when the state was come to the verge of\nruin, it was again said, \u201cThe Lord would not destroy Judah, for David his\nservant\u2019s sake, as he promised him to give him alway a light, and to his\nchildren.\u201d(750) The sum of the whole is this\u2014that David alone was chosen,\nto the rejection of all others, as the perpetual object of the Divine\nfavour; as it is said, in another place, \u201cHe forsook the tabernacle of\nShiloh; he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of\nEphraim; but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion, which he loved. He\nchose David also his servant, to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his\ninheritance.\u201d(751) Finally, it pleased God to preserve his Church in such\na way, that its security and salvation should depend on that head. David\ntherefore exclaims, \u201cThe Lord is their strength, and he is the saving\nstrength of his anointed;\u201d(752) and immediately adds this petition: \u201cSave\nthy people, and bless thine inheritance;\u201d signifying that the state of the\nChurch is inseparably connected with the government of Christ. In the same\nsense he elsewhere says, \u201cSave, Lord; let the king hear us when we\ncall.\u201d(753) In these words he clearly teaches us that the faithful resort\nto God for assistance, with no other confidence than because they are\nsheltered under the protection of the king. This is to be inferred from\nanother psalm: \u201cSave, O Lord! Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the\nLord;\u201d(754) where it is sufficiently evident that the faithful are invited\nto Christ, that they may hope to be saved by the power of God. The same\nthing is alluded to in another prayer, where the whole Church implores the\nmercy of God: \u201cLet thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the\nSon of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.\u201d(755) For though the\nauthor of the psalm deplores the dissipation of all the people, yet he\nardently prays for their restoration in their head alone. But when\nJeremiah, after the people were driven into exile, the land laid waste,\nand all things apparently ruined, bewails the miseries of the Church, he\nprincipally laments that by the subversion of the kingdom, the hope of the\nfaithful was cut off. \u201cThe breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the\nLord, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall\nlive among the heathen.\u201d(756) Hence it is sufficiently evident, that since\nGod cannot be propitious to mankind but through the Mediator, Christ was\nalways exhibited to the holy fathers under the law, as the object to which\nthey should direct their faith.\n\nIII. Now, when consolation is promised in affliction, but especially when\nthe deliverance of the Church is described, the standard of confidence and\nhope is erected in Christ alone. \u201cThou wentest forth for the salvation of\nthy people, even for salvation with thine anointed,\u201d(757) says Habakkuk.\nAnd whenever the Prophets mention the restoration of the Church, they\nrecall the people to the promise given to David concerning the perpetuity\nof his kingdom. Nor is this to be wondered at; for otherwise there would\nbe no stability in the covenant. To this refers the memorable answer of\nIsaiah. For when he saw that his declaration concerning the raising of the\nsiege, and the present deliverance of Jerusalem, was rejected by that\nunbelieving king, Ahaz, he makes rather an abrupt transition to the\nMessiah: \u201cBehold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son;\u201d(758)\nindirectly suggesting, that although the king and the people, in their\nperverseness, rejected the promise which had been given them, as though\nthey would purposely labour to invalidate the truth of God, yet that his\ncovenant would not be frustrated, but that the Redeemer should come at his\nappointed time. Finally, all the Prophets, in order to display the Divine\nmercy, were constantly careful to exhibit to view that kingdom of David,\nfrom which redemption and eternal salvation were to proceed. Thus Isaiah:\n\u201cI will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of\nDavid. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people;\u201d(759) because\nin desperate circumstances the faithful could have no hope, any otherwise\nthan by his interposition as a witness, that God would be merciful to\nthem. Thus also Jeremiah, to comfort them who were in despair, says,\n\u201cBehold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a\nrighteous Branch. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell\nsafely.\u201d(760) And Ezekiel: \u201cI will set up one Shepherd over them, and he\nshall feed them, even my servant David. And I the Lord will be their God,\nand my servant David a prince among them; and I will make with them a\ncovenant of peace.\u201d(761) Again, in another place, having treated of their\nincredible renovation, he says, \u201cDavid my servant shall be king over them;\nand they all shall have one Shepherd. Moreover I will make a covenant of\npeace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them.\u201d(762) I\nselect a few passages out of many, because I only wish to apprize the\nreader, that the hope of the pious has never been placed any where but in\nChrist. All the other Prophets also uniformly speak the same language. As\nHosea: \u201cThen shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be\ngathered together, and appoint themselves one head.\u201d(763) And in a\nsubsequent chapter he is still more explicit: \u201cThe children of Israel\nshall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king.\u201d(764)\nMicah also, discoursing on the return of the people, expressly declares,\n\u201ctheir king shall pass before them, and the Lord on the head of\nthem.\u201d(765) Thus Amos, intending to predict the restoration of the people,\nsays, \u201cIn that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,\nand close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins.\u201d(766)\nThis implies that the only standard of salvation was the restoration of\nthe regal dignity in the family of David, which was accomplished in\nChrist. Zechariah, therefore, living nearer to the time of the\nmanifestation of Christ, more openly exclaims, \u201cRejoice greatly, O\ndaughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh\nunto thee: he is just, and having salvation.\u201d(767) This corresponds with a\npassage from a psalm, already cited: \u201cThe Lord is the saving strength of\nhis anointed. Save thy people;\u201d(768) where salvation is extended from the\nhead to the whole body.\n\nIV. It was the will of God that the Jews should be instructed by these\nprophecies, so that they might direct their eyes to Christ whenever they\nwanted deliverance. Nor, indeed, notwithstanding their shameful\ndegeneracy, could the memory of this general principle ever be\nobliterated\u2014that God would be the deliverer of the Church by the hand of\nChrist, according to his promise to David; and that in this manner the\ncovenant of grace, in which God had adopted his elect, would at length be\nconfirmed. Hence it came to pass, that when Christ, a little before his\ndeath, entered into Jerusalem, that song was heard from the mouths of\nchildren, \u201cHosanna to the Son of David.\u201d(769) For the subject of their\nsong appears to have been derived from a sentiment generally received and\navowed by the people, that there remained to them no other pledge of the\nmercy of God, but in the advent of the Redeemer. For this reason Christ\ncommands his disciples to believe in him, that they may distinctly and\nperfectly believe in God: \u201cYe believe in God, believe also in me.\u201d(770)\nFor though, strictly speaking, faith ascends from Christ to the Father,\nyet he suggests, that though it were even fixed on God, yet it would\ngradually decline, unless he interposed, to preserve its stability. The\nmajesty of God is otherwise far above the reach of mortals, who are like\nworms crawling upon the earth. Wherefore, though I do not reject that\ncommon observation that God is the object of faith, yet I consider it as\nrequiring some correction. For it is not without reason that Christ is\ncalled \u201cthe image of the invisible God;\u201d(771) but by this appellation we\nare reminded, that unless God reveal himself to us in Christ, we cannot\nhave that knowledge of him which is necessary to salvation. For although\namong the Jews the scribes had by false glosses obscured the declarations\nof the Prophets concerning the Redeemer, yet Christ assumed it for\ngranted, as if allowed by common consent, that there was no other remedy\nfor the confusion into which the Jews had fallen, nor any other mode of\ndeliverance for the Church, but the exhibition of the Mediator. There was\nnot, indeed, such a general knowledge as there ought to have been, of the\nprinciple taught by Paul, that \u201cChrist is the end of the law;\u201d(772) but\nthe truth and certainty of this evidently appears both from the law itself\nand from the Prophets. I am not yet treating of faith; there will be a\nmore suitable place for that subject in another part of the work. Only let\nthis be well fixed in the mind of the reader; that the first step to piety\nis to know that God is our Father, to protect, govern, and support us till\nhe gathers us into the eternal inheritance of his kingdom; that hence it\nis plain, as we have before asserted, that there can be no saving\nknowledge of God without Christ; and consequently that from the beginning\nof the world he has always been manifested to all the elect, that they\nmight look to him, and repose all their confidence in him. In this sense\nIren\u00e6us says that the Father, who is infinite in himself, becomes finite\nin the Son; because he has accommodated himself to our capacity, that he\nmay not overwhelm our minds with the infinity of his glory.(773) And\nfanatics, not considering this, pervert a useful observation into an\nimpious reverie, as though there were in Christ merely a portion of Deity,\nan emanation from the infinite perfection; whereas the sole meaning of\nthat writer is, that God is apprehended in Christ, and in him alone. The\nassertion of John has been verified in all ages, \u201cWhosoever denieth the\nSon, the same hath not the Father.\u201d(774) For though many in ancient times\ngloried in being worshippers of the Supreme Deity, the Creator of heaven\nand earth, yet, because they had no Mediator, it was impossible for them\nto have any real acquaintance with the mercy of God, or persuasion that he\nwas their Father. Therefore, as they did not hold the head, that is,\nChrist, all their knowledge of God was obscure and unsettled; whence it\ncame to pass, that degenerating at length into gross and vile\nsuperstitions, they betrayed their ignorance, like the Turks in modern\ntimes; who, though they boast of having the Creator of heaven and earth\nfor their God, yet only substitute an idol instead of the true God as long\nas they remain enemies to Christ.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII. The Law Given, Not To Confine The Ancient People To Itself,\nBut To Encourage Their Hope Of Salvation In Christ, Till The Time Of His\nComing.\n\n\nFrom the deduction we have made, it may easily be inferred, that the law\nwas superadded about four hundred years after the death of Abraham, not to\ndraw away the attention of the chosen people from Christ, but rather to\nkeep their minds waiting for his advent, to inflame their desires and\nconfirm their expectations, that they might not be discouraged by so long\na delay. By the word _law_, I intend, not only the decalogue, which\nprescribes the rule of a pious and righteous life, but the form of\nreligion delivered from God by the hands of Moses. For Moses was not made\na legislator to abolish the blessing promised to the seed of Abraham; on\nthe contrary, we see him on every occasion reminding the Jews of that\ngracious covenant made with their fathers, to which they were heirs; as\nthough the object of his mission had been to renew it. It was very clearly\nmanifested in the ceremonies. For what could be more vain or frivolous\nthan for men to offer the fetid stench arising from the fat of cattle, in\norder to reconcile themselves to God? or to resort to any aspersion of\nwater or of blood, to cleanse themselves from pollution? In short, the\nwhole legal worship, if it be considered in itself, and contain no shadows\nand figures of correspondent truths, will appear perfectly ridiculous.\nWherefore it is not without reason, that both in the speech of Stephen and\nin the Epistle to the Hebrews, that passage is so carefully stated, in\nwhich God commands Moses to make all things pertaining to the tabernacle\n\u201caccording to the pattern showed to him in the mount.\u201d(775) For unless\nthere had been some spiritual design, to which they were directed, the\nJews would have laboured to no purpose in these observances, as the\nGentiles did in their mummeries. Profane men, who have never seriously\ndevoted themselves to the pursuit of piety, have not patience to hear of\nsuch various rites: they not only wonder why God should weary his ancient\npeople with such a mass of ceremonies, but they even despise and deride\nthem as puerile and ludicrous. This arises from inattention to the end of\nthe legal figures, from which if those figures be separated, they must be\ncondemned as vain and useless. But the \u201cpattern,\u201d which is mentioned,\nshows that God commanded the sacrifices, not with a design to occupy his\nworshippers in terrestrial exercises, but rather that he might elevate\ntheir minds to sublimer objects. This may be likewise evinced by his\nnature; for as he is a Spirit, he is pleased with none but spiritual\nworship. Testimonies of this truth may be found in the numerous passages\nof the Prophets, in which they reprove the stupidity of the Jews for\nsupposing that sacrifices possess any real value in the sight of God. Do\nthey mean to derogate from the law? Not at all; but being true\ninterpreters of it, they designed by this method to direct the eyes of the\npeople to that point from which the multitude were wandering. Now, from\nthe grace offered to the Jews, it is inferred as a certain truth, that the\nlaw was not irrespective of Christ; for Moses mentioned to them this end\nof their adoption, that they might \u201cbe unto God a kingdom of\npriests;\u201d(776) which could not be attained without a greater and more\nexcellent reconciliation than could arise from the blood of beasts. For\nwhat is more improbable than that the sons of Adam, who by hereditary\ncontagion are all born the slaves of sin, should be exalted to regal\ndignity, and thus become partakers of the glory of God, unless such an\neminent blessing proceeded from some other source than themselves? How\nalso could the right of the priesthood remain among them, the pollution of\nwhose crimes rendered them abominable to God, unless they had been\nconsecrated in a holy head? Wherefore Peter makes a beautiful application\nof this observation of Moses, suggesting that the plenitude of that grace,\nof which the Jews enjoyed a taste under the law, is exhibited in Christ.\n\u201cYe are,\u201d says he, \u201ca chosen generation, a royal priesthood.\u201d(777) This\napplication of the words tends to show, that they, to whom Christ has\nappeared under the gospel, have obtained more than their forefathers;\nbecause they are all invested with sacerdotal and regal honours, that in a\ndependence on their Mediator they may venture to come boldly into the\npresence of God.\n\nII. And here it must be remarked, by the way, that the kingdom, which at\nlength was erected in the family of David, is a part of the law, and\ncomprised under the ministry of Moses; whence it follows, that both in the\nposterity of David, and in the whole Levitical tribe, as in a twofold\nmirror, Christ was exhibited to the view of his ancient people. For, as I\nhave just observed, it was otherwise impossible that in the Divine view\nthey should be kings and priests, who were the slaves of sin and death,\nand polluted by their own corruptions. Hence appears the truth of the\nassertion of Paul, that the Jews were subject, as it were, to the\nauthority of a schoolmaster, till the advent of that seed, for whose sake\nthe promise was given.(778) For Christ being not yet familiarly\ndiscovered, they were like children, whose imbecility could not yet bear\nthe full knowledge of heavenly things. But how they were led to Christ by\nthe ceremonies, has been already stated, and may be better learned from\nthe testimonies of the Prophets. For although they were obliged every day\nto approach God with new sacrifices, in order to appease him, yet Isaiah\npromises them the expiation of all their transgressions by a single\nsacrifice,(779) which is confirmed by Daniel.(780) The priests chosen from\nthe tribe of Levi, used to enter into the sanctuary; but concerning that\none priest it was once said, that he was divinely chosen with an oath, to\nbe \u201ca priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.\u201d(781) There was,\nthen, an unction of visible oil; but Daniel, from his vision, foretells an\nunction of a different kind. But not to insist on many proofs, the author\nof the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the fourth chapter to the eleventh,\ndemonstrates in a manner sufficiently copious and clear, that,\nirrespective of Christ, all the ceremonies of the law are worthless and\nvain. And in regard to the decalogue, we should attend to the declaration\nof Paul, that \u201cChrist is the end of the law for righteousness to every one\nthat believeth;\u201d(782) and also that Christ is \u201cthe Spirit,\u201d who gives\n\u201clife\u201d to the otherwise dead letter.(783) For in the former passage he\nsignifies that righteousness is taught in vain by the precepts, till\nChrist bestows it both by a gratuitous imputation, and by the Spirit of\nregeneration. Wherefore he justly denominates Christ the completion or end\nof the law; for we should derive no benefit from a knowledge of what God\nrequires of us, unless we were succoured by Christ when labouring and\noppressed under its yoke and intolerable burden. In another place, he\nstates that \u201cthe law was added because of transgressions;\u201d(784) that is,\nto humble men, by convicting them of being the causes of their own\ncondemnation. Now, this being the true and only preparation for seeking\nChrist, the various declarations which he makes are in perfect unison with\neach other. But as he was then engaged in a controversy with erroneous\nteachers, who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the\nlaw,\u2014in order to refute their error, he was sometimes obliged to use the\nterm _law_ in a more restricted sense, as merely preceptive, although it\nwas otherwise connected with the covenant of gratuitous adoption.\n\nIII. But it is worthy of a little inquiry, how we are rendered more\ninexcusable by the instructions of the moral law, in order that a sense of\nour guilt may excite us to supplicate for pardon. If it be true that the\nlaw displays a perfection of righteousness, it also follows that the\ncomplete observation of it, is in the sight of God a perfect\nrighteousness, in which a man would be esteemed and reputed righteous at\nthe tribunal of heaven. Wherefore Moses, when he had promulgated the law,\nhesitated not to \u201ccall heaven and earth to record\u201d(785) that he had\nproposed to the Israelites life and death, good and evil. Nor can we deny\nthat the reward of eternal life awaits a righteous obedience to the law,\naccording to the Divine promise. But, on the other hand, it is proper to\nexamine whether we perform that obedience, the merit of which can warrant\nour confident expectation of that reward. For how unimportant is it, to\ndiscover that the reward of eternal life depends on the observance of the\nlaw, unless we also ascertain whether it be possible for us to arrive at\neternal life in that way! But in this point the weakness of the law is\nmanifest. For as none of us are found to observe the law, we are excluded\nfrom the promises of life, and fall entirely under the curse. I am now\nshowing, not only what does happen, but what necessarily must happen. For\nthe doctrine of the law being far above human ability, man may view the\npromises, indeed, from a distance, but cannot gather any fruit from them.\nIt only remains for him, from their goodness to form a truer estimate of\nhis own misery, while he reflects that all hope of salvation is cut off,\nand that he is in imminent danger of death. On the other hand, we are\nurged with terrible sanctions, which bind, not a few of us, but every\nindividual of mankind; they urge, I say, and pursue us with inexorable\nrigour, so that in the law we see nothing but present death.\n\nIV. Therefore, if we direct our views exclusively to the law, the effects\nupon our minds will only be despondency, confusion, and despair, since it\ncondemns and curses us all, and keeps us far from that blessedness which\nit proposes to them who observe it. Does the Lord, then, you will say, in\nthis case do nothing but mock us? For how little does it differ from\nmockery, to exhibit a hope of felicity, to invite and exhort to it, to\ndeclare that it is ready for our reception, whilst the way to it is closed\nand inaccessible! I reply, although the promises of the law, being\nconditional, depend on a perfect obedience to the law, which can nowhere\nbe found, yet they have not been given in vain. For when we have learned\nthat they will be vain and inefficacious to us, unless God embrace us with\nhis gratuitous goodness, without any regard to our works, and unless we\nhave also embraced by faith that goodness, as exhibited to us in the\ngospel,\u2014then these promises are not without their use, even with the\ncondition annexed to them. For then he gratuitously confers every thing\nupon us, so that he adds this also to the number of his favours, that not\nrejecting our imperfect obedience, but pardoning its deficiencies, he\ngives us to enjoy the benefit of the legal promises, just as if we had\nfulfilled the condition ourselves. But as we shall more fully discuss this\nquestion when we treat of the justification of faith, we shall pursue it\nno further at present.\n\nV. Our assertion, respecting the impossibility of observing the law, must\nbe briefly explained and proved; for it is generally esteemed a very\nabsurd sentiment, so that Jerome has not scrupled to denounce it as\naccursed. What was the opinion of Jerome, I regard not; let us inquire\nwhat is truth. I shall not here enter into a long discussion of the\nvarious species of possibility; I call that impossible which has never\nhappened yet, and which is prevented by the ordination and decree of God\nfrom ever happening in future. If we inquire from the remotest period of\nantiquity, I assert that there never has existed a saint, who, surrounded\nwith a body of death, could attain to such a degree of love, as to love\nGod with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and,\nmoreover, that there never has been one, who was not the subject of some\ninordinate desire. Who can deny this? I know, indeed, what sort of saints\nthe folly of superstition imagines to itself, such as almost excel even\nthe angels of heaven in purity; but such an imagination is repugnant both\nto Scripture and to the dictates of experience. I assert also that no man,\nwho shall exist in future, will reach the standard of true perfection,\nunless released from the burden of the body. This is established by clear\ntestimonies of Scripture: Solomon says, \u201cThere is not a just man upon\nearth, that doeth good and sinneth not.\u201d(786) David; \u201cIn thy sight shall\nno man living be justified.\u201d(787) Job in many passages affirms the same\nthing;(788) but Paul most plainly of all, that \u201cthe flesh lusteth against\nthe Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.\u201d(789) Nor does he prove,\nthat \u201cas many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,\u201d by any\nother reason but because \u201cit is written, Cursed is every one that\ncontinueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to\ndo them;\u201d(790) evidently suggesting, and even taking it for granted, that\nno one can continue in them. Now, whatever is predicted in the Scriptures,\nmust be considered as perpetual, and even as necessary. With a similar\nfallacy Augustine used to be teased by the Pelagians, who maintained that\nit is an injury to God, to say that he commands more than the faithful\nthrough his grace are able to perform. To avoid their cavil, he admitted\nthat the Lord might, if he chose, exalt a mortal man to the purity of\nangels; but that he neither had ever done it, nor would ever do it,\nbecause he had declared otherwise in the Scriptures.(791) This I do not\ndeny; but I add that it is absurd to dispute concerning the power of God,\nin opposition to his veracity; and that, therefore, it affords no room for\ncavilling, when any one maintains that to be impossible, which the\nScriptures declare will never happen. But if the dispute be about the\nterm, the Lord, in reply to an inquiry of his disciples, \u201cWho, then, can\nbe saved?\u201d says, \u201cWith men this is impossible; but with God all things are\npossible.\u201d(792) Augustine contends, with a very powerful argument, that in\nthis flesh we never render to God the legitimate love which we owe to him.\n\u201cLove,\u201d says he, \u201cis an effect of knowledge, so that no man can perfectly\nlove God, who has not first a complete knowledge of his goodness. During\nour pilgrimage in this world, we see through an obscure medium; the\nconsequence of this, then, is, that our love is imperfect.\u201d It ought,\ntherefore, to be admitted without controversy, that it is impossible in\nthis carnal state to fulfil the law, if we consider the impotence of our\nnature, as will elsewhere be proved also from Paul.(793)\n\nVI. But for the better elucidation of the subject, let us state, in a\ncompendious order, the office and use of what is called the moral law. It\nis contained, as far as I understand it, in these three points. The first\nis, that while it discovers the righteousness of God, that is, the only\nrighteousness which is acceptable to God, it warns every one of his own\nunrighteousness, places it beyond all doubt, convicts, and condemns him.\nFor it is necessary that man, blinded and inebriated with self\u2010love,\nshould thus be driven into a knowledge of himself, and a confession of his\nown imbecility and impurity. Since, unless his vanity be evidently\nreproved, he is inflated with a foolish confidence in his strength, and\ncan never be brought to perceive its feebleness as long as he measures it\nby the rule of his own fancy. But as soon as he begins to compare it to\nthe difficulty of the law, he finds his insolence and pride immediately\nabate. For how great soever his preconceived opinion of it, he perceives\nit immediately pant under so heavy a load, and then totter, and at length\nfall. Thus, being instructed under the tuition of the law, he lays aside\nthat arrogance with which he was previously blinded. He must also be cured\nof the other disease, of pride, with which, we have observed, he is\nafflicted. As long as he is permitted to stand in his own judgment, he\nsubstitutes hypocrisy instead of righteousness; contented with which, he\nrises up with I know not what pretended righteousnesses, in opposition to\nthe grace of God. But when he is constrained to examine his life according\nto the rules of the law, he no longer presumes on his counterfeit\nrighteousness, but perceives that he is at an infinite distance from\nholiness; and also that he abounds with innumerable vices, from which he\nbefore supposed himself to be pure. For the evils of concupiscence are\nconcealed in such deep and intricate recesses, as easily to elude the view\nof man. And it is not without cause that the Apostle says, \u201cI had not\nknown lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;\u201d(794) because,\nunless it be stripped of its disguises, and brought to light by the law,\nit destroys the miserable man in so secret a manner, that he does not\nperceive its fatal dart.\n\nVII. Thus the law is like a mirror, in which we behold, first, our\nimpotence; secondly, our iniquity, which proceeds from it; and lastly, the\nconsequence of both, our obnoxiousness to the curse; just as a mirror\nrepresents to us the spots on our face. For when a man is destitute of\npower to practise righteousness, he must necessarily fall into the habits\nof sin. And sin is immediately followed by the curse. Therefore the\ngreater the transgression of which the law convicts us, the more severe is\nthe judgment with which it condemns us. This appears from the observation\nof the Apostle, that \u201cby the law is the knowledge of sin.\u201d(795) For he\nthere speaks only of the first office of the law, which is experienced in\nsinners not yet regenerated. The same sentiment is conveyed in the\nfollowing passages: that \u201cthe law entered, that the offence might\nabound;\u201d(796) and that it is therefore \u201cthe ministration of death, which\nworketh wrath and slayeth.\u201d(797) For iniquity undoubtedly increases more\nand more, in proportion to the clearness of that sense of sin which\nstrikes the conscience; because to transgression of the law, there is then\nadded contumacy against the lawgiver. It remains, therefore, that the law\narm the Divine wrath against the sinner; for of itself it can only accuse,\ncondemn, and destroy. And, as Augustine says, if we have not the Spirit of\ngrace, the law serves only to convict and slay us. But this assertion\nneither reflects dishonour on the law, nor at all derogates from its\nexcellence. Certainly, if our will were wholly conformed to the law, and\ndisposed to obey it, the mere knowledge of it would evidently be\nsufficient to salvation. But since our carnal and corrupt nature is in a\nstate of hostility against the spirituality of the Divine law, and not\namended by its discipline, it follows that the law, which was given for\nsalvation, if it could have found adequate attention, becomes an occasion\nof sin and death. For since we are all convicted of having transgressed\nit, the more clearly it displays the righteousness of God, so, on the\ncontrary, the more it detects our iniquity, and the more certainly it\nconfirms the reward of life and salvation reserved for the righteous, so\nmuch the more certain it makes the perdition of the wicked. These\nexpressions, therefore, are so far from being dishonourable to the law,\nthat they serve more illustriously to recommend the Divine goodness. For\nhence it really appears, that our iniquity and depravity prevent us from\nenjoying that blessed life which is revealed to all men in the law. Hence\nthe grace of God, which succours us without the assistance of the law, is\nrendered sweeter; and his mercy, which confers it on us, more amiable;\nfrom which we learn that he is never wearied with repeating his blessings\nand loading us with new favours.\n\nVIII. But though the iniquity and condemnation of us all are confirmed by\nthe testimony of the law, this is not done (at least if we properly profit\nby it) in order to make us sink into despair, and fall over the precipice\nof despondency. It is true that the wicked are thus confounded by it, but\nthis is occasioned by the obstinacy of their hearts. With the children of\nGod, its instructions must terminate in a different manner. The Apostle\nindeed declares that we are all condemned by the sentence of the law,\n\u201cthat every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty\nbefore God.\u201d(798) Yet the same Apostle elsewhere informs us, that \u201cGod\nhath concluded them all in unbelief,\u201d not that he might destroy or suffer\nall to perish, but \u201cthat he might have mercy upon all;\u201d(799) that is, that\nleaving their foolish opinion of their own strength, they may know that\nthey stand and are supported only by the power of God; that being naked\nand destitute, they may resort for assistance to his mercy, recline\nthemselves wholly upon it, hide themselves entirely in it, and embrace it\nalone for righteousness and merits, since it is offered in Christ to all\nwho with true faith implore it and expect it. For in the precepts of the\nlaw, God appears only, on the one hand, as the rewarder of perfect\nrighteousness, of which we are all destitute; and on the other, as the\nsevere judge of transgressions. But in Christ, his face shines with a\nplenitude of grace and lenity, even towards miserable and unworthy\nsinners.\n\nIX. Of making use of the law to implore the assistance of God, Augustine\nfrequently treats; as when he writes to Hilary: \u201cThe law gives commands,\nin order that, endeavouring to perform them, and being wearied through our\ninfirmity under the law, we may learn to pray for the assistance of\ngrace.\u201d Also to Asellius: \u201cThe utility of the law is to convince man of\nhis own infirmity, and to compel him to pray for the gracious remedy\nprovided in Christ.\u201d Also to Innocentius Romanus: \u201cThe law commands: grace\nfurnishes strength for the performance.\u201d Again, to Valentine: \u201cGod\ncommands what we cannot perform, that we may know for what blessings we\nought to supplicate him.\u201d Again: \u201cThe law was given to convict you; that\nbeing convicted you might fear, that fearing you might pray for pardon,\nand not presume on your own strength.\u201d Again: \u201cThe end for which the law\nwas given, was to diminish that which was great, to demonstrate that you\nhave of yourself no ability to work righteousness, that thus, being poor,\nindigent, and destitute, you might have recourse to grace for relief.\u201d\nAfterwards he addresses himself to God: \u201cThus do, O Lord! thus do, O\nmerciful Lord! command that which cannot be performed: even command that\nwhich cannot be performed without thy grace: that when men cannot perform\nit in their own strength, every mouth may be stopped, and no man appear\ngreat in his own estimation. Let all men be mean, and let all the world be\nproved guilty before God.\u201d But I am not wise in collecting so many\ntestimonies, when this holy man has written a treatise expressly on this\nsubject, which he has entitled _De Spiritu et Litera_, On the Spirit and\nLetter. The second use of the law he does not so clearly describe, either\nbecause he knew that it depends on the first, or because he did not so\nfully understand it, or because he wanted words to explain it with\ndistinctness and perspicuity adequate to his ideas of it. Yet this first\noffice of the law is not confined to the pious, but extends also to the\nreprobate. For though they do not, with the children of God, advance so\nfar as, after the mortification of the flesh, to be renewed, and to\nflourish again in the inner man, but, confounded with the first horrors of\nconscience, remain in despair, yet they contribute to manifest the equity\nof the Divine judgment, by their consciences being agitated with such\nviolent emotions. For they are always desirous of cavilling against the\njudgment of God; but now, while it is not yet manifested, they are,\nnevertheless, so confounded with the testimony of the law and of their own\nconscience, that they betray in themselves what they have deserved.\n\nX. The second office of the law is, to cause those who, unless\nconstrained, feel no concern for justice and rectitude, when they hear its\nterrible sanctions, to be at least restrained by a fear of its penalties.\nAnd they are restrained, not because it internally influences or affects\ntheir minds, but because, being chained, as it were, they refrain from\nexternal acts, and repress their depravity within them, which otherwise\nthey would have wantonly discharged. This makes them neither better nor\nmore righteous in the Divine view. For although, being prevented either by\nfear or by shame, they dare not execute what their minds have contrived,\nnor openly discover the fury of their passions, yet their hearts are not\ndisposed to fear and obey God; and the more they restrain themselves, the\nmore violently they are inflamed within; they ferment, they boil, ready to\nbreak out into any external acts, if they were not prevented by this dread\nof the law. And not only so, they also inveterately hate the law itself,\nand execrate God the lawgiver, so that, if they could, they would wish to\nannihilate him whom they cannot bear, either in commanding that which is\nright, or in punishing the despisers of his majesty. In some, indeed, this\nstate of mind is more evident, in others more concealed; but it is really\nthe case of all who are yet unregenerate, that they are induced to attend\nto the law, not by a voluntary submission, but with reluctance and\nresistance, only by the violence of fear. But yet this constrained and\nextorted righteousness is necessary to the community, whose public\ntranquillity is provided for by God in this instance, while he prevents\nall things being involved in confusion, which would certainly be the case,\nif all men were permitted to pursue their own inclinations. Moreover, it\nis useful even to the children of God, to be exercised by its discipline\nbefore their vocation, while they are destitute of the Spirit of\nsanctification, and are absorbed in carnal folly. For when the dread of\nDivine vengeance restrains them even from external licentiousness,\nalthough, their minds being not yet subdued, they make but a slow progress\nat present, yet they are in some measure accustomed to bear the yoke of\nrighteousness; so that when they are called, they may not be entirely\nunaccustomed to its discipline, as a thing altogether unknown. To this\noffice of the law the Apostle appears particularly to have referred, when\nhe says, \u201cthat the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the\nlawless and disobedient; for the ungodly and for sinners; for unholy and\nprofane; for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers; for\nmanslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with\nmankind, for men\u2010stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there\nbe any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.\u201d(800) For he here\nsignifies that it restrains the violence of the carnal desires, which\nwould otherwise indulge themselves in the most unbounded licentiousness.\n\nXI. But we may apply to both what he elsewhere asserts, that to the Jews\n\u201cthe law was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ;\u201d(801) for there are\ntwo kinds of persons who are led to Christ by its discipline. Some, whom\nwe mentioned in the first place, from too much confidence either in their\nown strength or in their own righteousness, are unfit to receive the grace\nof Christ, till they have first been stripped of every thing. The law,\ntherefore, reduces them to humility by a knowledge of their own misery,\nthat thus they may be prepared to pray for that of which they before\nsupposed themselves not destitute. Others need a bridle to restrain them,\nlest they abandon themselves to carnal licentiousness, to such a degree as\nwholly to depart from all practice of righteousness. For where the Spirit\ndoes not yet reign, there is sometimes such a violent ebullition of the\npassions, as to occasion great danger of the soul that is under their\ninfluence being swallowed up in forgetfulness and contempt of God; which\nwould certainly be the case, if the Lord did not provide this remedy\nagainst it. Those, therefore, whom he has destined to the inheritance of\nhis kingdom, if he do not immediately regenerate them, he keeps under fear\nby the works of the law till the time of his visitation; not that chaste\nand pure fear which ought to be felt by his children, but a fear which is,\nnevertheless, useful to train them, according to their capacity, to true\npiety. Of this we have so many proofs, that there is no need to adduce any\nexample. For all who have lived for a considerable time in ignorance of\nGod will confess it to have been their experience, that they were\nconstrained by the law to a certain kind of fear and reverence of God,\ntill, being regenerated by his Spirit, they began to love him from their\nhearts.\n\nXII. The third use of the law, which is the principal one, and which is\nmore nearly connected with the proper end of it, relates to the faithful,\nin whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns. For although\nthe law is inscribed and engraven on their hearts by the finger of\nGod,\u2014that is, although they are so excited and animated by the direction\nof the Spirit, that they desire to obey God,\u2014yet they derive a twofold\nadvantage from the law. For they find it an excellent instrument to give\nthem, from day to day, a better and more certain understanding of the\nDivine will to which they aspire, and to confirm them in the knowledge of\nit. As, though a servant be already influenced by the strongest desire of\ngaining the approbation of his master, yet it is necessary for him\ncarefully to inquire and observe the orders of his master, in order to\nconform to them. Nor let any one of us exempt himself from this necessity;\nfor no man has already acquired so much wisdom, that he could not by the\ndaily instruction of the law make new advances into a purer knowledge of\nthe Divine will. In the next place, as we need not only instruction, but\nalso exhortation, the servant of God will derive this further advantage\nfrom the law; by frequent meditation on it he will be excited to\nobedience, he will be confirmed in it, and restrained from the slippery\npath of transgression. For in this manner should the saints stimulate\nthemselves, because, with whatever alacrity they labour for the\nrighteousness of God according to the Spirit, yet they are always burdened\nwith the indolence of the flesh, which prevents their proceeding with due\npromptitude. To this flesh the law serves as a whip, urging it, like a\ndull and tardy animal, forwards to its work; and even to the spiritual\nman, who is not yet delivered from the burden of the flesh, it will be a\nperpetual spur, that will not permit him to loiter. To this use of the law\nDavid referred, when he celebrated it in such remarkable encomiums as\nthese: \u201cThe law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the statutes\nof the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is\npure, enlightening the eyes,\u201d &c.(802) Again: \u201cThy word is a lamp unto my\nfeet, and a light unto my path;\u201d(803) and many others, which he introduces\nin every part of this psalm. Nor are these assertions repugnant to those\nof Paul, in which he shows, not what service the law renders to the\nregenerate, but what it can bestow upon man merely of itself; whereas the\nPsalmist in these passages celebrates the great advantage derived, through\nthe Divine teaching, from the reading of the law, by those whom God\ninspires with an inward promptitude to obedience. And he adverts not only\nto the precepts, but to the promise of grace annexed to their performance,\nwhich alone causes that which is bitter to become sweet. For what would be\nless amiable than the law, if by demands and threats it only distressed\nthe mind with fear, and harassed it with terror? But David particularly\nshows, that in the law he discovered the Mediator, without whom there is\nnothing pleasant or delightful.\n\nXIII. Some unskilful men, being unable to discern this distinction, rashly\nexplode Moses altogether, and discard the two tables of the law; because\nthey consider it improper for Christians to adhere to a doctrine which\ncontains the administration of death. Far from us be this profane opinion;\nfor Moses has abundantly taught us, that the law, which in sinners can\nonly produce death, ought to have a better and more excellent use in the\nsaints. For just before his death he thus addressed the people: \u201cSet your\nhearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye\nshall command your children to observe, to do all the words of this law.\nFor it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life.\u201d(804) But if\nno one can deny that the law exhibits a perfect model of righteousness,\neither we ought to have no rule for an upright and just life, or it is\ncriminal for us to deviate from it. For there are not many rules of life,\nbut one, which is perpetually and immutably the same. Wherefore, when\nDavid represents the life of a righteous man as spent in continual\nmeditations on the law,(805) we must not refer it to one period of time\nonly, because it is very suitable for all ages, even to the end of the\nworld. Let us neither be deterred, therefore, nor fly from its\ninstructions, because it prescribes a holiness far more complete than we\nshall attain, as long as we remain in the prison of the body. For it no\nlonger exercises towards us the part of a rigorous exactor, only to be\nsatisfied by the perfect performance of every injunction; but in this\nperfection, to which it exhorts us, it shows us a goal, to aim at which,\nduring the whole of our lives, would be equally conducive to our interest\nand consistent with our duty; in which attempt it is happy for us if we\nfail not. For the whole of this life is a course, which when we have\ncompleted, the Lord will grant us to reach that goal, towards which at so\ngreat a distance our efforts are now vigorously directed.\n\nXIV. Now, because the law, in regard to the faithful, has the force of an\nexhortation, not to bind their consciences with a curse, but by its\nfrequent admonitions to arouse their indolence, and reprove their\nimperfection,\u2014many persons, when they design to express this liberation\nfrom its curse, say that the law (I still speak of the moral law) is\nabrogated to the faithful; not that it no longer enjoins upon them that\nwhich is right, but only that it ceases to be to them what it was before,\nno longer terrifying and confounding their consciences, condemning and\ndestroying them. And such an abrogation of the law is clearly taught by\nPaul. It appears also to have been preached by our Lord, since he would\nnot have refuted the opinion concerning his abolishing the law, unless it\nhad prevailed among the Jews. Now, as this opinion could not prevail\nwithout any pretext, it is probable that it proceeded from a false\ninterpretation of his doctrine; in the same manner as almost all errors\nhave usually taken some colour from the truth. But lest we ourselves fall\ninto the same error, let us accurately distinguish what is abrogated in\nthe law, and what still remains in force. When the Lord declares that he\ncame \u201cnot to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,\u201d and that \u201ctill heaven and\nearth shall pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the\nlaw, till all be fulfilled,\u201d(806) he sufficiently proves that his advent\nwould detract nothing from the observance of the law. And with sufficient\nreason, since the express end of his advent was to heal the transgressions\nof it. The doctrine of the law remains, therefore, through Christ,\ninviolable; which by tuition, admonition, reproof, and correction, forms\nand prepares us for every good work.\n\nXV. The assertions of Paul respecting the abrogation of the law evidently\nrelate, not to the instruction itself, but to the power of binding the\nconscience. For the law not only teaches, but authoritatively requires,\nobedience to its commands. If this obedience be not yielded, and even if\nthere be any partial deficiency of duty, it hurls the thunderbolt of its\ncurse. For this reason the Apostle says, that \u201cas many as are of the works\nof the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one\nthat continueth not in all things.\u201d(807) Now, he affirms those to be \u201cof\nthe works of the law,\u201d who place not their righteousness in the remission\nof sins, by which we are released from the rigour of the law. He teaches\nus, therefore, that we must be released from the bondage of the law,\nunless we would perish in misery under it. But what bondage? the bondage\nof that austere and rigid exaction, which remits nothing from its\nstrictest requirements, and permits no transgression to pass with\nimpunity; I say, Christ, in order to redeem us from this curse, was \u201cmade\na curse for us. For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a\ntree.\u201d(808) In the following chapter, indeed, he tells us, that Christ was\n\u201cmade under the law, to redeem them that were under the law;\u201d but in the\nsame sense; for he immediately adds, \u201cthat we might receive the adoption\nof sons.\u201d(809) What is this? that we might not be oppressed with a\nperpetual servitude, which would keep our consciences in continual\ndistress with the dread of death. At the same time this truth remains for\never unshaken, that the law has sustained no diminution of its authority,\nbut ought always to receive from us the same veneration and obedience.\n\nXVI. The case of ceremonies, which have been abrogated, not as to their\neffect, but only as to their use, is very different. Their having been\nabolished by the advent of Christ, is so far from derogating from their\nsanctity, that it rather recommends and renders it more illustrious. For\nas they must have exhibited to the people, in ancient times, a vain\nspectacle, unless they had discovered the virtue of the death and\nresurrection of Christ, so, if they had not ceased, we should, in the\npresent age, have been unable to discern for what purpose they were\ninstituted. To prove, therefore, that the observance of them is not only\nneedless, but even injurious, Paul teaches us that they were shadows, the\nbody of which we have in Christ.(810) We see, then, that the truth shines\nwith greater splendour in their abolition, than if they still continued to\ngive a distant and obscure representation of Christ, who has openly\nappeared. For this reason, at the death of Christ, \u201cthe veil of the temple\nwas rent in twain from the top to the bottom;\u201d(811) because, according to\nthe author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the living and express image of\nthe heavenly blessings, which before had been only sketched in obscure\nlineaments, was now clearly revealed. The same truth is conveyed in the\ndeclaration of Christ, that \u201cthe law and the prophets were until John;\nsince that time the kingdom of God is preached.\u201d(812) Not that the holy\nfathers had been destitute of that preaching which contains the hope of\nsalvation, and of eternal life, but because they saw only at a distance,\nand under shadows, what we now contemplate in open day. But the reason,\nwhy it was necessary for the Church of God to ascend from those rudiments\nto sublimer heights, is explained by John the Baptist: \u201cthe law was given\nby Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.\u201d(813) For although\nexpiation of sin was truly promised in the ancient sacrifices, and the ark\nof the covenant was a certain pledge of the paternal favour of God, all\nthese would have been mere shadows, if they had not been founded in the\ngrace of Christ, where alone we may find true and eternal stability. Let\nus firmly maintain, then, that though the legal rites have ceased to be\nobserved, yet their very discontinuance gives us a better knowledge of\ntheir great utility before the advent of Christ, who, abolishing the\nobservance of them, confirmed their virtue and efficacy in his death.\n\nXVII. The reasoning of Paul is attended with more difficulty: \u201cAnd you,\nbeing dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he\nquickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting\nout the hand\u2010writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary\nto us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross,\u201d &c.(814) For\nit seems to extend the abolition of the law somewhat further, as though we\nhad now no concern with its \u201cordinances.\u201d For they are in an error who\nunderstand it simply of the moral law, the abolition of which they,\nnevertheless, explain to relate to its inexorable severity, rather than to\nits precepts. Others, more acutely and carefully considering the words of\nPaul, perceive that they belong particularly to the ceremonial law; and\nprove that the word \u201cordinances\u201d is more than once used by Paul in that\nsignification. For he thus expresses himself to the Ephesians: \u201cHe is our\npeace, who hath made both one; having abolished the law of commandments\ncontained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new\nman.\u201d(815) That he there speaks of the ceremonies, is very evident; for he\ncalls the law \u201cthe middle wall of partition,\u201d by which the Jews were\nseparated from the Gentiles. Wherefore I allow that the former\ncommentators are justly censured by these; but even these do not appear to\nme clearly to explain the meaning of the Apostle. For to compare these two\npassages as in all respects similar, is what I by no means approve. When\nhe designs to assure the Ephesians of their admission into fellowship with\nthe Israelites, he informs them, that the impediment which formerly\nprevented it is now removed. That consisted in ceremonies. For the rites\nof ablutions and sacrifices, by which the Jews were consecrated to the\nLord, caused a separation between them and the Gentiles. But in the\nEpistle to the Colossians he treats of a sublimer mystery. The controversy\nthere relates to the Mosaic observances, to which the false Apostles were\nstrenuously attempting to subject the Christians. But as in the Epistle to\nthe Galatians he goes to the depth of that controversy, and reduces it to\nits source, so also in this place. For if in the rites you contemplate\nnothing but the necessity of performing them, to what purpose were they\ncalled a \u201chand\u2010writing that was against us\u201d? and almost the whole of our\nredemption made to consist in its being \u201cblotted out?\u201d Wherefore it is\nevident, that here is something to be considered beside the external\nceremonies. And I am persuaded that I have discovered the genuine meaning,\nat least if that be conceded to me as a truth, which Augustine somewhere\nvery truly asserts, and which he has even borrowed from the positive\nexpressions of an Apostle,(816) that in the Jewish ceremonies there was\nrather a confession of sins than an expiation of them. For what did they\ndo in offering sacrifices, but confess themselves worthy of death, since\nthey substituted victims to be slain in their stead? What were their\npurifications, but confessions that they were themselves impure? Thus the\nhand\u2010writing both of their sin and of their impurity was frequently\nrenewed by them; but that confession afforded no deliverance. For which\nreason the Apostle says that the death of Christ effected \u201cthe redemption\nof the transgressions that were under the first testament.\u201d(817) The\nApostle, therefore, justly denominates the ceremonies \u201ca hand\u2010writing\nagainst those who observe them;\u201d because by them they publicly attested\ntheir condemnation and impurity. Nor does any objection arise from their\nhaving been also partakers of the same grace with us. For this they\nobtained in Christ, not in the ceremonies, which the Apostle there\ndistinguishes from Christ; for being practised at that time after the\nintroduction of the gospel, they obscured the glory of Christ. We find,\nthen, that the ceremonies, considered by themselves, are beautifully and\nappositely called a \u201chand\u2010writing that was against\u201d the salvation of men;\nbecause they were solemn instruments testifying their guilt. When the\nfalse Apostles wished to bring the Church back to the observance of them,\nthe Apostle deeply investigated their signification, and very justly\nadmonished the Colossians into what circumstances they would relapse, if\nthey should suffer themselves to be thus enslaved by them. For they would\nat the same time be deprived of the benefit of Christ; since, by the\neternal expiation that he has once effected, he has abolished those daily\nobservances, which could only attest their sins, but could never cancel\nthem.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII. An Exposition Of The Moral Law\n\n\nHere I think it will not be foreign to our subject to introduce the ten\nprecepts of the law, with a brief exposition of them. For this will more\nclearly evince what I have suggested, that the service which God has once\nprescribed always remains in full force; and will also furnish us with a\nconfirmation of the second remark, that the Jews not only learned from it\nthe nature of true piety, but when they saw their inability to observe it,\nwere led by the fear of its sentence, though not without reluctance, to\nthe Mediator. Now, in giving a summary of those things which are requisite\nto the true knowledge of God, we have shown that we can form no\nconceptions of his greatness, but his majesty immediately discovers itself\nto us, to constrain us to worship him. In the knowledge of ourselves, we\nhave laid down this as a principal article, that being divested of all\nopinion of our own strength, and confidence in our own righteousness, and,\non the other hand, discouraged and depressed by a consciousness of our\npoverty, we should learn true humility and self\u2010dejection. The Lord\naccomplishes both these things in his law, where, in the first place,\nclaiming to himself the legitimate authority to command, he calls us to\nrevere his Divinity, and prescribes the parts of which this reverence\nconsists; and in the next place, promulgating the rule of his\nrighteousness, (the rectitude of which, our nature, being depraved and\nperverted, perpetually opposes; and from the perfection of which, our\nability, through its indolence and imbecility towards that which is good,\nis at a great distance,) he convicts us both of impotence and of\nunrighteousness. Moreover, the internal law, which has before been said to\nbe inscribed and as it were engraven on the hearts of all men, suggests to\nus in some measure the same things which are to be learned from the two\ntables. For our conscience does not permit us to sleep in perpetual\ninsensibility, but is an internal witness and monitor of the duties we owe\nto God, shows us the difference between good and evil, and so accuses us\nwhen we deviate from our duty. But man, involved as he is in a cloud of\nerrors, scarcely obtains from this law of nature the smallest idea of what\nworship is accepted by God; but is certainly at an immense distance from a\nright understanding of it. Besides, he is so elated with arrogance and\nambition, and so blinded with self\u2010love, that he cannot yet take a view of\nhimself, and as it were retire within, that he may learn to submit and\nhumble himself, and to confess his misery. Since it was necessary,\ntherefore, both for our dulness and obstinacy, the Lord gave us a written\nlaw; to declare with greater certainty what in the law of nature was too\nobscure, and by arousing our indolence, to make a deeper impression on our\nunderstanding and memory.\n\nII. Now, it is easy to perceive, what we are to learn from the law;\nnamely, that God, as he is our Creator, justly sustains towards us the\ncharacter of a Father and of a Lord; and that on this account we owe to\nhim glory and reverence, love and fear. Moreover, that we are not at\nliberty to follow every thing to which the violence of our passions may\nincite us; but that we ought to be attentive to his will, and to practise\nnothing but what is pleasing to him. In the next place, that righteousness\nand rectitude are a delight, but iniquity an abomination to him; and that,\ntherefore, unless we will with impious ingratitude rebel against our\nMaker, we must necessarily spend our whole lives in the practice of\nrighteousness. For if we manifest a becoming reverence for him, only when\nwe prefer his will to our own, it follows that there is no other\nlegitimate worship of him, but the observance of righteousness, sanctity,\nand purity. Nor can we pretend to excuse ourselves by a want of ability,\nlike insolvent debtors. For it is improper for us to measure the glory of\nGod by our ability; for whatever may be our characters, he ever remains\nlike himself, the friend of righteousness, the enemy of iniquity. Whatever\nhe requires of us, since he can require nothing but what is right, we are\nunder a natural obligation to obey; but our inability is our own fault.\nFor if we are bound by our own passions, which are under the government of\nsin, so that we are not at liberty to obey our Father, there is no reason\nwhy we should plead this necessity in our defence, the criminality of\nwhich is within ourselves, and must be imputed to us.\n\nIII. When we have made such a proficiency as this by means of the\ninstruction of the law, we ought, under the same teacher, to retire within\nourselves; from which we may learn two things: First, by comparing our\nlife with the righteousness of the law, we shall find, that we are very\nfar from acting agreeably to the will of God, and are therefore unworthy\nto retain a place among his creatures, much less to be numbered among his\nchildren. Secondly, by examining our strength, we shall see, that it is\nnot only unequal to the observance of the law, but a mere nullity. The\nnecessary consequence of this will be a diffidence in our own strength,\nand an anxiety and trepidation of mind. For the conscience cannot sustain\nthe load of iniquity, without an immediate discovery of the Divine\njudgment. And the Divine judgment cannot be perceived, without inspiring a\ndread of death. Compelled also by proofs of its impotence, it cannot avoid\nfalling into an absolute despair of its own strength. Both these\ndispositions produce humility and dejection. The result of all this is,\nthat the man terrified with the apprehension of eternal death, which he\nsees justly impending over him for his unrighteousness, betakes himself\nentirely to the Divine mercy, as to the only port of salvation; and\nperceiving his inability to fulfil the commands of the law, and feeling\nnothing but despair in himself, he implores and expects assistance from\nanother quarter.\n\nIV. But not contented with having conciliated a reverence for his\nrighteousness, the Lord has also subjoined promises and threatenings, in\norder that our hearts might imbibe a love for him, and at the same time a\nhatred to iniquity. For since the eyes of our mind are too dim to be\nattracted with the mere beauty of virtue, our most merciful Father has\nbeen graciously pleased to allure us to the love and worship of himself by\nthe sweetness of his rewards. He announces, therefore, that he has\nreserved rewards for virtue, and that the person who obeys his\ncommandments shall not labour in vain. He proclaims, on the contrary, not\nonly that unrighteousness is execrable in his sight, but also that it\nshall not escape with impunity; but that he will avenge himself on all the\ndespisers of his majesty. And to urge us by all possible motives, he\npromises also the blessings of the present life, as well as eternal\nfelicity, to the obedience of those who keep his commandments, the\ntransgressors of which he threatens not only with present calamities, but\nwith the torments of eternal death. For that promise, \u201cthese if a man do,\nhe shall live in them,\u201d(818) and this correspondent threatening, \u201cthe soul\nthat sinneth, it shall die,\u201d(819) undoubtedly relate to a future and\nendless immortality or death. Wherever we read of the Divine benevolence\nor wrath, the former comprehends eternal life, the latter eternal\ndestruction. Now, of present blessings and curses, the law contains a long\ncatalogue. The penal sanctions display the consummate purity of God, which\ncannot tolerate iniquity; while the promises not only manifest his perfect\nlove of righteousness, which he cannot defraud of its reward, but likewise\nillustrate his wonderful goodness. For since we, with all that belongs to\nus, are indebted to his majesty, whatever he requires of us, he most\njustly demands as the payment of a debt; but the payment of a debt is not\nentitled to remuneration. Therefore he recedes from the strictness of his\nclaims, when he proposes a reward to our obedience, which is not performed\nspontaneously, as if it were not a duty. But the effect of those promises\non us has partly been mentioned already, and will hereafter more clearly\nappear in its proper place. Suffice it at present, if we remember and\nconsider that the promises of the law contain no mean recommendation of\nrighteousness, to make it more evident how much God is pleased with the\nobservance of it; and that the penal sanctions are annexed, to render\nunrighteousness more execrable, lest the sinner, amidst the fascinations\nof sin, should forget that the judgment of the Legislator awaits him.\n\nV. Now, since the Lord, when about to deliver a rule of perfect\nrighteousness, referred all the parts of it to his own will, this shows\nthat nothing is more acceptable to him than obedience. This is worthy of\nthe most diligent observation, since the licentiousness of the human mind\nis so inclined to the frequent invention of various services in order to\nmerit his favour. For this irreligious affectation of religion, which is a\nprinciple innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in all ages, and\nbetrays itself even in the present day; for men always take a pleasure in\ncontriving some way of attaining righteousness, which is not agreeable to\nthe Divine word. Hence, among those which are commonly esteemed good\nworks, the precepts of the law hold a very contracted station, the\nnumberless multitude of human inventions occupying almost the whole space.\nBut what was the design of Moses, unless it was to repress such an\nunwarrantable license, when, after the promulgation of the law, he\naddressed the people in the following manner! \u201cObserve and hear all these\nwords which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy\nchildren after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right\nin the sight of the Lord thy God. What thing soever I command you, observe\nto do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.\u201d(820) And\nbefore, when he had declared that this was their wisdom and their\nunderstanding in the sight of other nations, that they had received\nstatutes, and judgments, and ceremonies, from the Lord, he had added,\n\u201cTake heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the\nthings which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all\nthe days of thy life.\u201d(821) Foreseeing that the Israelites would not rest,\nbut, even after the reception of the law, would labour to produce new\nspecies of righteousness, foreign from what the law requires, unless they\nshould be rigorously restrained, God pronounces that his word comprehends\nthe perfection of righteousness; and yet, though this ought most\neffectually to have prevented them, they were guilty of that very\npresumption which was so expressly forbidden. But what is this to us? We\nare certainly bound by the same declaration; for the claims of the Lord on\nbehalf of his law, that it contains the doctrine of perfect righteousness,\nbeyond all doubt remain perpetually the same; yet not contented with it,\nwe are wonderfully laborious in inventing and performing other good works,\none after another. The best remedy for this fault will be a constant\nattention to this reflection; that the law was given to us from heaven to\nteach us a perfect righteousness; that in it no righteousness is taught,\nbut that which is conformable to the decrees of the Divine will; that it\nis therefore vain to attempt new species of works in order to merit the\nfavour of God, whose legitimate worship consists solely in obedience, but\nthat any pursuit of good works deviating from the law of God is an\nintolerable profanation of the Divine and real righteousness. There is\nmuch truth also in the observation of Augustine, who calls obedience to\nGod sometimes the parent and guardian, and sometimes the origin of all\nvirtues.\n\nVI. But when we have given an exposition of the Divine law, we shall then\nmore suitably and profitably confirm what has been already advanced\nconcerning its office and use. Before we enter, however, on the discussion\nof each article separately, it will be useful to premise some things which\nmay contribute to a general knowledge of it. First, let it be understood,\nthat the law inculcates a conformity of life, not only to external\nprobity, but also to internal and spiritual righteousness. Now, though\nnone can deny this, yet very few persons pay proper attention to it. This\narises from their not considering the Legislator, by whose nature we ought\nto estimate also the nature of the law. If a king prohibit, by an edict,\nadultery, murder, or theft, no man, I confess, will be liable to the\npenalty of such a law, who has only conceived in his mind a desire to\ncommit adultery, murder, or theft, but has not perpetrated any of them.\nBecause the superintendence of a mortal legislator extends only to the\nexternal conduct, and his prohibitions are not violated unless the crimes\nbe actually committed. But God, whose eye nothing escapes, and who esteems\nnot so much the external appearance as the purity of the heart, in the\nprohibition of adultery, murder, and theft, comprises a prohibition of\nlust, wrath, hatred, coveting what belongs to another, fraud, and every\nsimilar vice. For, being a spiritual Legislator, he addresses himself to\nthe soul as much as to the body. Now, the murder of the soul is wrath and\nhatred; the theft of the soul is evil concupiscence and avarice; the\nadultery of the soul is lust. But it will be said, that human laws also\nrelate to designs and intentions, and not to fortuitous events. This I\ngrant; but they relate to such designs and intentions as have been\nmanifested in outward actions. They examine and consider with what\nintention every act has been performed; but do not scrutinize the secret\nthoughts. Human laws therefore are satisfied, when a man abstains from\nexternal transgression. But, on the contrary, the Divine law being given\nto our minds, the proper regulation of them is the principal requisite to\na righteous observance of it. But men in general, even while they\nresolutely dissemble their contempt of the law, dispose their eyes, their\nfeet, their hands, and all the parts of their body, to some kind of\nobservance of it, while at the same time their hearts are entirely\nalienated from all obedience to it, and they suppose that they have\ndischarged their duty, if they have concealed from man what they practise\nin the sight of God. They hear the commands, Thou shalt not kill, Thou\nshalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal. They draw not the sword\nto commit murder; they never associate with harlots; they lay no violent\nhands on the property of others. All these things thus far are well; but\nin their whole souls they breathe after murders, they kindle into lust,\nthey look with dishonest eyes on the property of others, and in their\ncupidity they devour it. Now, then, they are destitute of the principal\nrequisite of the law. Whence arises such gross stupidity, but from\ndiscarding the Legislator, and accommodating a righteousness to their own\ninclination? These persons Paul strongly opposes, when he affirms that\n\u201cthe law is spiritual;\u201d(822) signifying that it requires not only the\nobedience of the soul, the understanding, and the will, but even an\nangelic purity, which, being cleansed from all the pollution of the flesh,\nmay savour entirely of the Spirit.\n\nVII. When we say that this is the sense of the law, we are not introducing\na novel interpretation of our own, but following Christ, who is the best\ninterpreter of it. For the people having imbibed from the Pharisees the\ncorrupt opinion, that he, who has perpetrated no external act of\ndisobedience to the law, is an observer of the law, he confutes this very\ndangerous error, and pronounces an unchaste look at a woman to be\nadultery; he declares them to be murderers, who hate a brother; he makes\nthem \u201cin danger of the judgment,\u201d who have only conceived resentment in\ntheir hearts; them \u201cin danger of the council,\u201d who in murmuring or\nquarrelling have discovered any sign of an angry mind; and them \u201cin danger\nof hell fire,\u201d who with opprobrious and slanderous language have broken\nforth into open rage.(823) Persons who have not perceived these things,\nhave pretended that Christ was another Moses, the giver of an evangelical\nlaw, which supplied the deficiencies of the law of Moses. Whence that\ncommon maxim, concerning the perfection of the evangelical law, that it is\nfar superior to the old law\u2014a maxim in many respects very pernicious. For\nwhen we introduce a summary of the commandments, it will appear from Moses\nhimself what an indignity this fixes on the Divine law. It certainly\ninsinuates that all the sanctity of the fathers under the Old Testament,\nwas not very remote from hypocrisy, and draws us aside from that one\nperpetual rule of righteousness. But there is not the least difficulty in\nthe confutation of this error; for they have supposed that Christ made\nadditions to the law, whereas he only restored it to its genuine purity,\nby clearing it from the obscurities and blemishes which it had contracted\nfrom the falsehoods and the leaven of the Pharisees.\n\nVIII. It must be observed, in the second place, that the commands and\nprohibitions always imply more than the words express; but this must be so\nrestricted, that we may not make it a Lesbian rule, by the assistance of\nwhich the Scripture may be licentiously perverted, and any sense be\nextorted at pleasure from any passage. For some people, by this immoderate\nand excursive liberty, cause one person to despise the authority of the\nlaw, and another to despair of understanding it. Therefore, if it be\npossible, we must find some way that may lead us by a straight and steady\ncourse to the will of God. We must inquire, I say, how far our\ninterpretation ought to exceed the limits of the expressions; that it may\nevidently appear, not to be an appendix of human glosses annexed to the\nDivine law, but a faithful explanation of the pure and genuine sense of\nthe legislator. Indeed, in all the commandments, the figure synecdoche, by\nwhich a part is expressed instead of the whole, is so conspicuous, that he\nmay justly be the object of ridicule, who would restrict the sense of the\nlaw within the narrow limits of the words. It is plain, then, that a sober\nexposition of the law goes beyond the words of it; but how far, remains\ndoubtful, unless some rule be laid down. The best rule, then, I conceive\nwill be, that the exposition be directed to the design of the precept;\nthat in regard to every precept it should be considered for what end it\nwas given. For example, every precept is either imperative or prohibitory.\nThe true meaning of both these kinds of precepts will immediately occur to\nus, if we consider the design or the end of them; as the end of the fifth\ncommandment is, that honour may be given to them to whom God assigns it.\nThe substance of this precept, then, is, that it is right, and pleasing to\nGod, that we should honour those on whom he has conferred any excellence,\nand that contemptuous and contumacious conduct towards them is an\nabomination to him. The design of the first commandment is, that God alone\nmay be worshipped. The substance of this precept, then, will be, that true\npiety, that is, the worship of his majesty, is pleasing to God, and that\nhe abominates impiety. Thus in every commandment we should first examine\nthe subject of it; in the next place we should inquire the end of it, till\nwe discover what the Legislator really declares in it to be either\npleasing or displeasing to him. Lastly, we must draw an argument from this\ncommandment to the opposite of it, in this manner:\u2014If this please God, the\ncontrary must displease him; if this displease him, the contrary must\nplease him; if he enjoin this, he forbids the contrary; if he forbid this,\nhe enjoins the contrary.\n\nIX. What we now rather obscurely hint at, will be fully and practically\nelucidated in our exposition of the commandments. Wherefore it is\nsufficient to have suggested it; only the last position, which otherwise\nmight not be understood, or, if understood, might seem unreasonable,\nrequires to be briefly established by suitable proof. It needs no proof,\nthat an injunction of any thing good is a prohibition of the opposite\nevil; for every man will concede it. And common sense will easily admit,\nthat a prohibition of crimes is a command to practise the contrary duties.\nIt is commonly considered as a commendation of virtues, when censure is\npassed on the opposite vices. But we require somewhat more than is\ncommonly intended by those forms of expression. For men generally\nunderstand the virtue which is opposite to any vice to be an abstinence\nfrom that vice; but we affirm that it goes further, even to the actual\nperformance of the opposite duty. Therefore, in this precept, \u201cThou shalt\nnot kill,\u201d the common sense of mankind will perceive nothing more than\nthat we ought to abstain from all acts of injury to others, and from all\ndesire to commit any such acts. I maintain that it also implies, that we\nshould do every thing that we possibly can towards the preservation of the\nlife of our neighbour. And not to speak without reason, I prove it in the\nfollowing manner: God forbids us to injure the safety of our brother,\nbecause he wishes his life to be dear and precious to us: he therefore at\nthe same time requires of us all those offices of love which may\ncontribute to the preservation of it. Thus we perceive, that the end of\nthe precept will always discover to us whatever it enjoins or forbids us\nto do.\n\nX. Many reasons are frequently given, why God has, as it were, in\nincomplete precepts, rather partially intimated his will than positively\nexpressed it; but the reason which affords me more satisfaction than all\nothers is the following. Because the flesh always endeavours to extenuate,\nand by specious pretexts to conceal the turpitude of sin, unless it be\nexceedingly palpable, he has proposed, by way of example, in every kind of\ntransgression, that which is most atrocious and detestable, and the\nmention of which inspires us with horror, in order that our minds might be\nimpressed with the greater detestation of every sin. This often deceives\nus in forming an opinion of vices; if they be private, we extenuate them.\nThe Lord destroys these subterfuges, when he accustoms us to refer the\nwhole multitude of vices to these general heads, which best represent the\nabominable nature of every species of transgressions. For example, anger\nand hatred are not supposed to be such execrable crimes when they are\nmentioned under their own proper appellations; but when they are forbidden\nto us under the name of murder, we have a clearer perception how\nabominable they are in the view of God, by whose word they are classed\nunder such a flagitious and horrible species of crimes; and being\ninfluenced by his judgment, we accustom ourselves more seriously to\nconsider the atrociousness of those offences which we previously accounted\ntrivial.\n\nXI. In the third place, let it be considered, what is intended by the\ndivision of the Divine law into two tables; the frequent and solemn\nmention of which all wise men will judge not to be without some particular\ndesign. And we have a reason at hand, which removes all ambiguity on this\nsubject. For God has divided his law into two parts, which comprise the\nperfection of righteousness, so that he has assigned the first part to the\nduties of religion, which peculiarly belongs to the worship of his\nmajesty, and the second to those duties of charity, which respect men. The\nfirst foundation of righteousness is certainly the worship of God; and if\nthis be destroyed, all the other branches of righteousness, like the parts\nof a disjointed and falling edifice, are torn asunder and scattered. For\nwhat kind of righteousness will you pretend to, because you refrain from\nharassing men by acts of theft and rapine, if at the same time you\natrociously and sacrilegiously defraud the majesty of God of the glory\nwhich is due to him?\u2014because you do not pollute your body with\nfornication, if you blasphemously profane the sacred name of God?\u2014because\nyou murder no man, if you strive to destroy and extinguish all memory of\nGod? It is in vain, therefore, to boast of righteousness without religion;\nas well might the trunk of a body be exhibited as a beautiful object,\nafter the head has been cut off. Nor is religion only the head of\nrighteousness, but the very soul of it, constituting all its life and\nvigour; for without the fear of God, men preserve no equity and love among\nthemselves. We therefore call the worship of God the principle and\nfoundation of righteousness, because, if that be wanting, whatever equity,\ncontinence, and temperance men may practise among themselves, it is all\nvain and frivolous in the sight of God. We assert also that it is the\nsource and soul of righteousness; because men are taught by it to live\ntemperately and justly with one another, if they venerate God as the judge\nof right and wrong. In the first table, therefore, he instructs us in\npiety and the proper duties of religion, in which his majesty is to be\nworshipped; in the second he prescribes the duties which the fear of his\nname should excite us to practise in society. For this reason our Lord, as\nthe evangelists inform us,(824) summarily comprised the whole law in two\nprincipal points\u2014that we love God with all our heart, with all our soul,\nand with all our strength; and that we love our neighbour as ourselves. Of\nthe two parts in which he comprehends the whole law, we see how he directs\none towards God, and assigns the other to men.\n\nXII. But, although the whole law is contained in these two principal\npoints, yet our God, in order to remove every pretext of excuse, has been\npleased in the ten commandments more diffusely and explicitly to declare,\nas well those things which relate to our honour, love, and fear of him, as\nthose which pertain to that charity, which he commands us for his sake to\nexercise towards men. Nor is it a useless study to examine into the\ndivision of the commandments; provided you remember it is a subject of\nsuch a nature, that every man ought to be at liberty to judge of it, and\nthat we ought not contentiously to oppose any who may differ from us\nrespecting it. But we are under a necessity of touching on this topic,\nlest the reader should despise or wonder at the division that we shall\nadopt, as a novel invention. That the law is divided into ten precepts, is\nbeyond all controversy, being frequently established by the authority of\nGod himself. The question, therefore, is not concerning the number of the\nprecepts, but concerning the manner of dividing them. Those who divide\nthem, so as to assign three precepts to the first table, and leave the\nremaining seven to the second, expunge from the number the precept\nconcerning images, or at least conceal it under the first; whereas it is\nundoubtedly delivered by the Lord as a distinct commandment. But the\ntenth, against coveting the property of our neighbour, they improperly\ndivide into two. We shall see presently that such a method of division was\nunknown in purer ages. Others reckon with us four articles in the first\ntable; but the first commandment they consider as a simple promise,\nwithout a precept. Now, I understand the \u201cten words\u201d mentioned by Moses to\nbe ten precepts; and I think I see that number disposed in the most\nbeautiful order. And therefore, unless I am convinced by clear argument,\nleaving them in possession of their opinion, I shall follow what appears\nto me to be preferable; that is, that what they make the first precept is\na preface to the whole law; that it is followed by the precepts, four\nbelonging to the first table and six to the second, in the order in which\nthey will now be recited. Origen has mentioned this division as if it were\nuniversally received in his time without any controversy. Augustine also\ncoincides with us; for in enumerating them to Boniface, he observes this\norder: That God alone be religiously worshipped; that no adoration be paid\nto an idol; that the name of the Lord be not taken in vain. He had before\nspoken separately of the shadowy precept of the sabbath. It is true, that\nin another passage he expresses his approbation of the former division,\nbut for a most trivial reason; namely, that if the first table be digested\ninto three precepts, the trinal number will be a more conspicuous\nexhibition of the mystery of the Trinity. In the same place, however, he\ndoes not conceal that in other respects he prefers our division. Beside\nthese writers, the author of the unfinished treatise on Matthew is of the\nsame opinion with us. Josephus, doubtless according to the common opinion\nof his time, assigns five precepts to each table. This is repugnant to\nreason, because it confounds the distinction between religion and charity;\nand is also refuted by the authority of our Lord, who in Matthew places\nthe precept concerning honour to parents in the second table. Now let us\nhear God himself speaking in his own words.\n\n\n\nThe First Commandment.\n\n\n    _I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of\n    Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods\n    before me._\n\n\nXIII. Whether you make the first sentence a part of the first commandment,\nor read it separately, is a matter of indifference to me, provided you\nallow it to be a preface to the whole law. The first object of attention\nin making laws is to guard against their being abrogated by contempt.\nTherefore God in the first place provides, that the majesty of the law,\nwhich he is about to deliver, may never fall into contempt; and to\nsanction it he uses a threefold argument. He asserts his authority and\nright of giving commands, and thereby lays his chosen people under a\nnecessity of obeying them. He exhibits a promise of grace, to allure them\nby its charms to the pursuit of holiness. He reminds the Israelites of his\nfavour, to convict them of ingratitude if they do not conduct themselves\nin a manner correspondent to his goodness. The name LORD, or JEHOVAH,\ndesignates his authority and legitimate dominion. For if all things be of\nhim, and if in him all things consist, it is reasonable that all things be\nreferred to him, agreeably to the observation of Paul.(825) Therefore by\nthis word alone we are brought into complete subjection to the power of\nthe Divine majesty; for it would be monstrous for us to desire to remove\nourselves from his jurisdiction, out of whom we cannot exist.\n\nXIV. After having shown that he has a right to command, and that obedience\nis his just due,\u2014that he may not appear to constrain us by necessity\nalone, he sweetly allures us by pronouncing himself the God of the Church.\nFor the expression implies the mutual relation which is contained in that\npromise, \u201cI will be their God, and they shall be my people.\u201d(826) Whence\nChrist proves the immortality of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the\ndeclaration of the Lord, that he is their God.(827) Wherefore it is the\nsame as if he had said, I have chosen you as my people, not only to bless\nyou in the present life, but to bestow upon you abundant felicity in the\nlife to come. The design of this favour is remarked in various places in\nthe law; for when the Lord in mercy condescends to number us among the\nsociety of his people, \u201cHe chooseth us,\u201d says Moses, \u201cto be a peculiar\npeople unto himself, a holy people, to keep his commandments.\u201d(828) Hence\nthat exhortation, \u201cYe shall be holy, for I am holy.\u201d(829) Now, from these\ntwo considerations is derived the remonstrance of the Lord by the Prophet:\n\u201cA son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a\nfather, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my\nfear?\u201d(830)\n\nXV. Next follows a recital of his kindness, which ought to produce a most\npowerful effect upon our minds, in proportion to the detestable guilt of\ningratitude, even among men. He reminded the Israelites, indeed, of a\nfavour which they had recently experienced, but which, on account of its\nmagnitude and concomitant miracles, being worthy of everlasting\nremembrance, might also have an influence on succeeding generations.\nBesides, it was particularly suitable to the present occasion, when the\nlaw was about to be published; for the Lord suggests that they were\nliberated from a miserable slavery in order that they might serve the\nauthor of their liberty with a promptitude of reverence and obedience. To\nretain us in the true and exclusive worship of himself, he generally\ndistinguishes himself by certain epithets, by which he discriminates his\nsacred name from all idols and fictitious deities. For, as I have before\nobserved, such is our proneness to vanity and presumption, that as soon as\nGod is mentioned, our mind is unable to guard itself from falling into\nsome vain imagination. Therefore, when God intends to apply a remedy to\nthis evil, he adorns his majesty with certain titles, and thus\ncircumscribes us with barriers, that we may not run into various follies,\nand presumptuously invent to ourselves some new deity, discarding the\nliving God, and setting up an idol in his stead. For this reason the\nProphets, whenever they intend a proper designation of him, invest him,\nand as it were surround him, with those characters under which he had\nmanifested himself to the people of Israel. Yet, when he is called \u201cthe\nGod of Abraham,\u201d or \u201cthe God of Israel,\u201d when he is said to reside\n\u201cbetween the cherubim,\u201d \u201cin the temple,\u201d \u201cat Jerusalem,\u201d(831) these and\nsimilar forms of expression do not confine him to one place, or to one\nnation; they are only used to fix the thoughts of the pious on that God,\nwho, in the covenant which he has made with Israel, has given such a\nrepresentation of himself, that it is not proper to deviate in the\nsmallest instance from such a model. Nevertheless, let it be concluded,\nthat the deliverance of the Jews is mentioned to induce them to devote\nthemselves with more alacrity to the service of God, who justly claims a\nright to their obedience. But, that we may not suppose this to have no\nrelation to us, it behoves us to consider, that the servitude of Israel in\nEgypt was a type of the spiritual captivity, in which we are all detained,\ntill our celestial Deliverer extricates us by the power of his arm, and\nintroduces us into the kingdom of liberty. As formerly, therefore, when he\ndesigned to restore the dispersed Israelites to the worship of his name,\nhe rescued them from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, by which they\nwere oppressed, so now he delivers all those, whose God he declares\nhimself to be, from the fatal dominion of Satan, which was represented by\nthat corporeal captivity. Wherefore there is no one, whose mind ought not\nto be excited to listen to the law, which he is informed came from the\nKing of kings; from whom as all creatures derive their origin, so it is\nreasonable that they should regard him as their end in all things. Every\nman, I say, ought to welcome the Legislator; to observe whose commands he\nis taught that he is particularly chosen; from whose benignity he expects\nan abundance of temporal blessings, and a life of immortality and glory;\nby whose wonderful power and mercy he knows himself to be delivered from\nthe jaws of death.\n\nXVI. Having firmly established the authority of his law, he publishes the\nfirst commandment, \u201cThat we should have no other gods before him.\u201d The end\nof this precept is, that God chooses to have the sole pre\u00ebminence, and to\nenjoy undiminished his authority among his people. To produce this end, he\nenjoins us to keep at a distance from all impiety and superstition, by\nwhich we should either diminish or obscure the glory of his Deity; and for\nthe same reason he directs us to worship and adore him in the exercise of\ntrue piety. The simplicity of the language almost expresses this; for we\ncannot \u201chave\u201d God without at the same time comprising all that belongs to\nhim. Therefore, when he forbids us to \u201chave\u201d any other gods, he implies,\nthat we must not transfer to another what belongs to him. But although the\nduties we owe to God are innumerable, yet they may not improperly be\nclassed under four general heads\u2014adoration, a necessary branch of which is\nthe spiritual obedience of the conscience; trust; invocation; and\nthanksgiving. By adoration I mean the reverence and worship which he\nreceives from every one of us who has submitted to his majesty. Wherefore\nit is not without reason that I make it partly to consist in a subjection\nof our consciences to his law; [for it is a spiritual homage which is\nrendered to him, as to a sovereign King possessed of all power over our\nsouls.] Trust is a secure dependence on him arising from a knowledge of\nhis perfections; when ascribing to him all wisdom, righteousness, power,\ntruth, and goodness, we esteem ourselves happy only in communications from\nhim. Invocation is the application of our minds, under every pressure of\nnecessity, resorting to his fidelity, faithfulness, and assistance, as its\nonly defence. Thanksgiving is gratitude, which ascribes to him the praise\nof all blessings. As the Lord permits no portion of these duties to be\ntransferred to another, so he commands them to be wholly given to himself.\nNor will it be sufficient for you to refrain from worshipping any other\ngod, unless you also refrain from imitating certain nefarious despisers,\nwho take the compendious method of treating all religions with contempt.\nBut the observance of this precept must be preceded by true religion,\nleading our minds to the living God; that being endued with the knowledge\nof him, they may aspire to admire, fear, and worship his majesty, to\nreceive his communication of blessings, to request his aid upon all\noccasions, to acknowledge and celebrate the magnificence of his works, as\nthe sole end in all the actions of our lives. We must also beware of\ncorrupt superstition, by which those whose minds are diverted from the\ntrue God, are carried about after various deities. Therefore, if we be\ncontented with one God, let us remember what has before been observed,\nthat all fictitious deities must be driven far away, and that we must not\ndivide that worship which he claims exclusively to himself. For it is\ncriminal to detract even the smallest portion from his glory; he must be\nleft in possession of all that belongs to him. The following clause,\n\u201cbefore me,\u201d aggravates the atrociousness of the offence; for God is\nprovoked to jealousy whenever we substitute the figments of our own minds\ninstead of him; just as an immodest woman, by openly introducing an\nadulterer into the presence of her husband, would inflame his mind with\nthe greater resentment. When God, therefore, by the presence of his power\nand grace, gave a proof of his regard to the people whom he had chosen,\u2014in\norder the more forcibly to deter them from the crime of rebellion against\nhim, he warns them of the impossibility of introducing new deities without\nhis being a witness and spectator of the sacrilege. For this presumption\nrises to the highest degree of impiety, when man imagines that he can\nelude the observation of God in his acts of rebellion. God, on the\ncontrary, proclaims, that whatever we devise, whatever we attempt,\nwhatever we perform, is present to his view. Our conscience must therefore\nbe pure even from the most latent thoughts of apostasy, if we wish our\nreligion to obtain the approbation of the Lord. For he requires from us\nthe glory due to his Divinity undiminished and uncorrupted, not only in\nexternal confession, but in his own eyes, which penetrate the inmost\nrecesses of our hearts.\n\n\n\nThe Second Commandment.\n\n\n    _Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness\n    of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth\n    beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not\n    bow down thyself to them, nor serve them._\n\n\nXVII. As in the preceding commandment the Lord has declared himself to be\nthe one God, besides whom no other deities ought to be imagined or\nworshipped, so in this he more clearly reveals his nature, and the kind of\nworship with which he ought to be honoured, that we may not dare to form\nany carnal conceptions of him. The end, therefore, of this precept is,\nthat he will not have his legitimate worship profaned with superstitious\nrites. Wherefore, in a word, he calls us off, and wholly abstracts us from\ncarnal observances, which our foolish minds are accustomed to devise, when\nthey conceive of God according to the grossness of their own\napprehensions; and therefore he calls us to the service which rightfully\nbelongs to him; that is, the spiritual worship which he has instituted. He\nmarks what is the grossest transgression of this kind; that is, external\nidolatry. And this precept consists of two parts. The first restrains us\nfrom licentiously daring to make God, who is incomprehensible, the subject\nof our senses, or to represent him under any visible form. The second\nprohibits us from paying religious adoration to any images. He likewise\nbriefly enumerates all the forms, in which he used to be represented by\nprofane and superstitious nations. By those things which are in heaven, he\nmeans the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and perhaps birds; as, when\nhe explains his meaning in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, he mentions\nbirds as well as the stars.(832) This I should not have remarked, had I\nnot known some persons injudiciously refer this clause to angels. I omit\nthe other particulars, as needing no explanation. And in the first\nbook(833) we have already sufficiently proved that whatever visible\nrepresentations of God are invented by man, are diametrically opposite to\nhis nature; and that, therefore, as soon as ever idols are introduced,\ntrue religion is immediately corrupted and adulterated.\n\nXVIII. The penal sanction which is annexed ought to have no small\ninfluence in arousing us from our lethargy. He thus threatens:\n\n\n    _For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of\n    the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation\n    of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them\n    that love me, and keep my commandments._\n\n\nThis is equivalent to a declaration that it is to him alone that we ought\nto adhere. And to urge us to it, he announces his power, which he permits\nnone with impunity to despise or undervalue. For the Hebrew word _El_,\nwhich is here used for God, is expressive of strength. In the second\nplace, he calls himself \u201ca jealous God,\u201d who can bear no rival. Thirdly,\nhe declares that he will avenge his majesty and glory on those who\ntransfer it to creatures or to graven images; and that not with the\ntransient punishment of the original transgressors only, but of their\nposterity to the third and fourth generation; that is, of those who shall\nimitate the impiety of their fathers; as he also permanently displays his\nmercy and goodness, through a long line of posterity, to those who love\nhim and keep his law. It is very common for God to assume the character of\na husband to us; for the union, in which he connects us with himself, when\nhe receives us into the bosom of his Church, bears a resemblance to the\nsacred conjugal relation, which requires to be supported by mutual\nfidelity. As he performs towards us all the duties of a true and faithful\nhusband, so he demands from us the reciprocal duties of conjugal love and\nchastity; that is, that we do not prostitute our souls to Satan, to lust,\nand to the impurity of the carnal appetites. Wherefore, when he reproves\nthe apostasy of the Jews, he complains that they had discarded chastity,\nand were polluted with adulteries.(834) Therefore, as a husband, in\nproportion to the superiority of his purity and chastity, is the more\ngrievously incensed, if he perceive the affection of his wife inclining to\na rival, so the Lord, who has in truth espoused us to himself, declares\nthat he feels the most ardent jealousy, whenever we neglect the sacred\npurity of his conjugal relation to us, and defile ourselves with criminal\nlusts, but especially when we transfer to any other, or adulterate with\nany superstition, the worship of his majesty, which ought to be preserved\nin the most consummate perfection; since by such conduct we not only\nviolate the faith pledged in our nuptials, but even pollute our souls with\nspiritual adultery.\n\nXIX. Let us inquire what he intends by his threatening to \u201cvisit the\niniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth\ngeneration.\u201d For besides that it is inconsistent with the equity of the\nDivine justice to inflict upon an innocent person the punishment due to\nthe offences of another, God himself declares that \u201cthe son shall not bear\nthe iniquity of the father.\u201d(835) But this expression is repeated more\nthan once, concerning a deferring to future generations of the punishments\nof crimes committed by their ancestors. For Moses frequently speaks of\n\u201cthe Lord visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the\nthird and fourth generation.\u201d(836) In like manner Jeremiah: \u201cThou showest\nloving\u2010kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the\nfathers into the bosom of their children after them.\u201d(837) Some, who\nlabour very hard to solve this difficulty, are of opinion that its meaning\nis to be confined to temporal punishments; which if children sustain\nthrough the sins of their parents, there is nothing absurd in it; because\nthey frequently conduce to the salvation of those on whom they are\ninflicted. This is certainly true. For Isaiah denounced to Hezekiah, that\non account of the sin which he had committed, his sons should be despoiled\nof the kingdom and carried away into exile.(838) The families of Pharaoh\nand Abimelech are afflicted on account of the injury sustained by\nAbraham.(839) But when this is adduced as a solution of these questions,\nit is rather an evasion of it, than a proper explanation. For in this and\nin similar places the Lord threatens a punishment too great to be\nterminated by the limits of the present life. It must therefore be\nunderstood as a declaration that the curse of the Lord righteously rests,\nnot only on the person of an impious man, but also on his whole family.\nWhere it has rested, what can be expected, but that the father, being\ndestitute of the Spirit of God, will lead a most flagitious life; and that\nthe son, experiencing, in consequence of the iniquity of his father, a\nsimilar dereliction by the Lord, will pursue the same path to perdition;\nand that the grandson and the great grandson, the execrable posterity of\ndetestable men, will run headlong after them down the same precipice of\ndestruction?\n\nXX. First let us inquire, whether such punishment be inconsistent with the\nDivine justice. If the whole nature of man be worthy of condemnation, we\nknow that destruction awaits those who are not favoured by the Lord with\nthe communication of his grace. Nevertheless, they perish through their\nown iniquity, and not through the unjust hatred of God. Nor is there any\nroom left for expostulation, why they are not assisted by Divine grace to\nobtain salvation as well as others. Since it is a punishment, therefore,\ninflicted on the impious and flagitious, in consequence of their\ntransgressions, that their families remain destitute of Divine grace for\nmany generations, who can bring any accusation against God for this most\nrighteous instance of his vengeance? But it will be said, the Lord\ndeclares, on the contrary, that the punishment of the sin of the father\nshall not be transferred to the son. Observe the subject that is treated\nof in that place. The Israelites, after they had been long harassed by\nnumerous and unceasing calamities, began to use this proverb, \u201cThe fathers\nhave eaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on edge;\u201d(840) by\nwhich they insinuated, that sins had been committed by their parents, the\npunishment of which was inflicted on them who were otherwise righteous and\ninnocent, more through the implacable wrath of God, than through a just\nseverity. The Prophet announces to them that this is not the case, but\nthat they are punished for their own transgressions, and that it is\nincompatible with the Divine justice to punish a righteous son for the\niniquity of a wicked father. Nor is this to be found in the penal sanction\nnow under consideration. For if the visitation, of which we are treating,\nbe fulfilled, when God removes from the family of the impious his grace,\nthe light of his truth, and the other means of salvation, the very\ncircumstance of children blinded and abandoned by him being found treading\nin the footsteps of their fathers, is an instance of their bearing the\ncurse in consequence of the crimes of their parents. But their being the\nsubjects of temporal miseries, and at length of eternal perdition, are\npunishments from the righteous judgment of God, not for the sins of\nothers, but on account of their own iniquity.\n\nXXI. On the other hand, God gives a promise to extend his mercy to a\nthousand generations; which also frequently occurs in the Scripture, and\nis inserted in the solemn covenant with the Church: \u201cI will be a God unto\nthee, and to thy seed after thee.\u201d(841) In allusion to this, Solomon says,\nthat \u201cthe children of the just man are blessed after him;\u201d(842) not only\nas the effect of a religious education, which is of no small importance,\nbut also in consequence of the blessing promised in the covenant, that the\ngrace of God shall perpetually remain in the families of the pious. This\nis a source of peculiar consolation to the faithful, but to the impious of\ngreat terror; for if, even after death, the memory of righteousness and\niniquity has so much influence with God, that the curse of the one and the\nblessing of the other will redound to posterity, much more will it remain\non the persons of the actors themselves. Now, it is no objection to our\nargument, that the descendants of the impious sometimes grow better, while\nthose of the faithful degenerate; since the Legislator never intended to\nestablish in this case such an invariable rule, as would derogate from his\nown free choice. For it is sufficient for the consolation of the righteous\nand the terror of the sinner, that the denunciation is not vain or\ninefficacious, although it be not always executed. For as the temporal\npunishments inflicted on a few wicked men are testimonies of the Divine\nwrath against sin, and of the judgment that will hereafter be pronounced\non all sinners, though many escape with impunity even to the end of their\nlives, so, when the Lord exhibits one example of this blessing, in\nmanifesting his mercy and goodness to the son for the sake of his father,\nhe affords a proof of his constant and perpetual favour to his\nworshippers; and when, in any one instance, he pursues the iniquity of the\nfather in the son, he shows what a judgment awaits all the reprobate on\naccount of their own transgressions; the certainty of which was what he\nprincipally designed in this passage. He also gives us a cursory\nintimation of the greatness of his mercy, which he extends to a thousand\ngenerations, while he has assigned only four generations to his vengeance.\n\n\n\nThe Third Commandment.\n\n\n    _Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain._\n\n\nXXII. The end of this precept is, that the Lord will have the majesty of\nhis name to be held inviolably sacred by us. The substance of the command\ntherefore is, that we ought not to profane that name by a contemptuous or\nirreverent use of it. This prohibition necessarily implies an injunction,\nthat we studiously and carefully treat it with religious veneration.\nTherefore it becomes us to regulate our thoughts and words in such a\nmanner that we may not think or speak any thing concerning God and his\nmysteries, but with the greatest sobriety and reverence; that in\nmeditating on his works we may form no opinion that is dishonourable to\nhim. These three things, I say, we ought most carefully to observe\u2014first,\nthat whatever we think, and whatever we say of him, should savour of his\nexcellence, correspond to the sacred sublimity of his name, and tend to\nthe exaltation of his magnificence. Secondly, we should not rashly and\npreposterously abuse his holy word and adorable mysteries to the purposes\nof ambition, of avarice, or of amusement; but as they bear an impression\nof the dignity of his name, they should always receive from us the honour\nand esteem which belong to them. Lastly, we should not injure his works by\nobloquy or detraction, as some miserable mortals are accustomed to do; but\nwhenever we mention any thing done by him, we should celebrate it with\nencomiums of wisdom, justice, and goodness. This is \u201csanctifying\u201d the name\nof God. In every other case, it is violated by a vain and criminal abuse,\nbecause it is carried beyond the limits of that legitimate use, to which\nalone it is consecrated; and though no other consequence ensue, it is\ndeprived of its dignity, and by degrees rendered contemptible. But if it\nbe so criminal thus rashly and unseasonably to introduce the name of God\non every occasion, much more so must it be to apply it to such nefarious\nuses as they do, who make it subservient to the superstitions of\nnecromancy, to horrible imprecations, to unlawful exorcisms, and to other\nimpious incantations. But an oath is the thing principally contemplated in\nthe command, as the most detestable instance of the perverse abuse of the\nDivine name; and this is done to inspire us with the greater horror of\nevery species of profanation of it. That this precept relates to the\nworship of God and the reverence of his name, and not to the equity that\nought to be observed among mankind, appears from this\u2014that the subsequent\ncondemnation, in the second table, of perjury and false witness, by which\nsociety is injured, would be a needless repetition, if the present precept\nrelated to a civil duty. Besides, the division of the law requires this;\nfor, as we have already observed, it is not in vain that God has\ndistributed the law into two tables. Whence we conclude, that in this\ncommand he vindicates his just claims, and guards the sanctity of his\nname, but does not teach the duties which men owe to each other.\n\nXXIII. In the first place, we have to explain what an oath is. It consists\nin calling upon God as a witness, to confirm the truth of any declaration\nthat we make. For execrations, which contain manifest reproaches against\nGod, are not worthy to be mentioned among oaths. That such an attestation,\nwhen rightly performed, is a species of Divine worship, is evident from\nmany places of Scripture; as when Isaiah prophesies of the vocation of the\nAssyrians and Egyptians to participate in the covenant with Israel. \u201cThey\nshall speak,\u201d says he, \u201cthe language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of\nhosts.\u201d(843) By \u201cswearing to the Lord\u201d here is intended making a\nprofession of religion. Again, when he speaks of the extension of his\nkingdom: \u201cHe who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the\nGod of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of\ntruth.\u201d(844) Jeremiah says, \u201cIf they will diligently learn the ways of my\npeople, to swear by my name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to\nswear by Baal, then shall they be built in the midst of my people.\u201d(845)\nAnd we are justly said to profess our religion to the Lord, when we invoke\nhis name to bear witness to us. For thereby we confess that he is truth\nitself, eternal and immutable; whom we call not only as a witness of the\ntruth, excelling all others, but also as the only defender of it, who is\nable to bring to light things which are concealed, and in a word, as the\nsearcher of all hearts. For where human testimonies are wanting, we resort\nfor refuge to the testimony of God; and particularly when any thing is to\nbe affirmed, which is hidden in the conscience. For which reason the Lord\nis extremely angry with them who swear by strange gods, and interprets\nthat species of swearing as a proof of manifest defection from him. \u201cThy\nchildren have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods.\u201d(846) And\nhe declares the atrociousness of this crime by his denunciation of\npunishment: \u201cI will cut off them that swear by the Lord, and that swear by\nMalcham.\u201d(847)\n\nXXIV. Now, since we understand it to be the will of the Lord, that we\nshould reverence his name in our oaths, we ought to use so much the more\ncaution, lest, instead of reverence, they betray dishonour or contempt of\nit. It is no trifling insult to him, when perjury is committed in his\nname; and therefore the law calls it a profanation.(848) But what remains\nto the Lord, when he is despoiled of his truth? he will then cease to be\nGod. But he is certainly despoiled of it, when he is made an abettor and\napprover of a falsehood. Wherefore, when Joshua would induce Achan to a\nconfession of the truth, he says, \u201cMy son, give, I pray thee, glory to the\nLord God of Israel;\u201d(849) implying in this that the Lord is grievously\ndishonoured, if perjury be committed in his name. Nor is this strange; for\nin such a case we do all that is in our power to brand his sacred name\nwith a falsehood. And that this form of expression was customary among the\nJews, whenever any man was called to take an oath, appears from a similar\nadjuration used by the Pharisees in the Gospel of John.(850) To this\ncaution we are accustomed by the forms of oaths which are used in the\nScriptures: \u201cThe Lord liveth;\u201d(851) \u201cGod do so and more also to me;\u201d(852)\n\u201cI call God for a record upon my soul;\u201d(853) which imply, that we cannot\ninvoke God to be a witness to our declarations, without imprecating his\nvengeance upon us if we be guilty of perjury.\n\nXXV. The name of God is rendered vile and contemptible, when it is used in\nunnecessarily swearing even to what is true; for in this instance also it\nis taken in vain. Wherefore it will not be sufficient to abstain from\nperjury; unless we also remember, that swearing is permitted and\nappointed, not for the sake of our pleasure or caprice, but from\nnecessity; and that the lawful use of it, therefore, is transgressed by\nthose who apply it to cases where it is not necessary. Now, no other\nnecessity can be pretended, but when we want to serve either religion or\ncharity. This crime, in the present day, is carried to a very great\nextent; and it is so much the more intolerable, since by its frequency it\nhas ceased to be considered as a crime, though before the Divine tribunal\nit is deemed no trivial offence. For the name of God is universally\nprofaned without concern in trifling conversations; and it is not\nconsidered as sinful, because this presumptuous wickedness has been so\nlong practised with impunity. But the Divine command remains valid; the\nsanction remains firm; and a future day will witness the completion of\nthat part of it which denounces a particular punishment against those who\ntake his name in vain. This precept is violated also in another way. If in\nour oaths we substitute the servants of God in the place of God himself,\nwe are guilty of manifest impiety; because we thereby transfer to them the\nglory due to the Deity. Nor is it without reason, that God, by a special\ncommand, enjoins us to swear by his name,(854) and by a special\nprohibition interdicts us from swearing by any strange gods.(855) And the\nApostle evidently attests the same, when he says, that \u201cmen swear by the\ngreater, but that God, because he could swear by no greater, sware by\nhimself.\u201d(856)\n\nXXVI. The Anabaptists, not satisfied with this limitation of oaths,\ncondemn all oaths without exception; because the prohibition of Christ is\ngeneral: \u201cI say unto you, Swear not at all. But let your communication be,\nYea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of\nevil.\u201d(857) But by this mode of interpretation they set Christ in\nopposition to the Father, as though he descended into this world to\nabrogate the Father\u2019s decrees. For in the law the eternal God not only\npermits an oath, as a lawful thing, which would be sufficient to justify\nthe use of it, but in cases of necessity commands it.(858) Now, Christ\nasserts, that \u201che and his Father are one,\u201d that \u201che acts only according to\nthe commands of the Father,\u201d that \u201chis doctrine is not of himself,\u201d\n&c.(859) What then? Will they make God to contradict himself, by\nprohibiting and condemning in our conduct that which he has before\napproved and enjoined? But as the words of Christ involve some difficulty,\nlet us enter on a brief examination of them. Here we shall never arrive at\nthe truth, unless we attend to the design of Christ, and advert to the\nsubject of which he is there treating. His design is not to relax or to\nrestrict the law, but to reduce it to its true and genuine meaning, which\nhad been very much corrupted by the false comments of the scribes and\nPharisees. If we bear this in our minds, we shall not be of opinion that\nChrist condemned all oaths, but only those which transgress the rule of\nthe law. It appears to have been the custom of the people at that time to\navoid nothing but perjuries; whereas the law forbids not only perjuries,\nbut likewise all vain and superfluous oaths. Our Lord, therefore, that\ninfallible expositor of the law, apprizes them that it is sinful, not only\nto perjure themselves, but even to swear. To swear in what manner? In\nvain. But the oaths which are sanctioned in the law he leaves without any\nobjection. They consider themselves as urging a very powerful argument,\nwhen they violently insist on the particle _at all_; which, nevertheless,\nrefers not to the word _swear_, but to the forms of oaths that are there\nsubjoined. For the error there condemned consisted, partly, in a\nsupposition that in swearing by heaven and earth, there was no\ninterference with the name of God. Therefore, after the principal instance\nof transgression, the Lord goes on to destroy all their subterfuges, that\nthey may not imagine themselves to have escaped by suppressing the name of\nGod, and calling heaven and earth to witness for them. For here, by the\nway, it must be remarked, that men indirectly swear by God, though his\nname is not expressed; as when they swear by the light of life, by the\nbread which they eat, by their baptism, or by any other blessings which\nthey have received from the Divine munificence. Nor does Christ in that\nplace prohibit them from swearing by heaven, and earth, and Jerusalem, in\norder to correct superstition, as some falsely imagine; but rather to\nconfute the sophistical subtlety of persons who thought there was no crime\nin the foolish use of indirect oaths, as though they were not chargeable\nwith profaning the sacred name of God, which is engraven, however, on all\nhis benefits. But the case is different, where any mortal man, or one that\nis dead, or an angel, is substituted in the place of God; as, among\nidolatrous nations, adulation invented that odious form of swearing by the\nlife or genius of a king; because in such cases the deification of a\ncreature obscures and diminishes the glory of the only true God. But when\nwe mean nothing but to derive a confirmation to our assertions from the\nsacred name of God, although it be done in an indirect manner, yet all\nsuch frivolous oaths are offensive to his majesty. Christ deprives this\nlicentious practice of every vain excuse, by his prohibition of swearing\nat all. James also aims at the same point,(860) where he uses the language\nof Christ, which I have cited; because this presumption has always been\nprevalent in the world, notwithstanding it is a profanation of the name of\nGod. For if you refer the particle _at all_ to the substance of swearing,\nas though every oath, without exception, were unlawful, what means the\nexplanation which is immediately annexed, \u201cNeither by heaven, neither by\nearth,\u201d &c., language evidently used in refutation of those cavils, which\nthe Jews considered as furnishing an excuse for their sin.\n\nXXVII. It can no longer be doubtful, therefore, to persons of sound\njudgment, that the Lord, in that passage, only condemns those oaths which\nhad been forbidden by the law. For even he, who exhibited in his life an\nexample of the perfection which he inculcated, hesitated not to make use\nof oaths whenever occasion required; and his disciples, who, we doubt not,\nwere obedient to their master in all things, followed the same example.\nWho can dare to assert, that Paul would have sworn, if all oaths had been\nprohibited? But when the occasion requires it, he swears without any\nscruple, and sometimes even adds an imprecation. The question, however, is\nnot yet decided; for it is the opinion of some persons, that public oaths\nare the only exceptions from this prohibition; such as we take when\nrequired by a magistrate; such also as princes are accustomed to use in\nratifying treaties; or subjects, when they swear allegiance to their\nprinces; or soldiers, as a military test; and others of a similar kind. To\nthis class also they justly refer those oaths which we find used by Paul\nin assertion of the dignity of the gospel; because the Apostles, in the\nexercise of their functions, were not private persons, but public\nministers of God. And indeed I will not deny that these are the safest\noaths; because they are sanctioned by the strongest testimonies of\nScripture. A magistrate is directed, in a dubious case, to put a witness\nto his oath, and the witness, on the other hand, is required to answer on\nhis oath; and the Apostle says, that human controversies are adjusted by\nthis expedient.(861) In this precept both parties are furnished with a\ncomplete justification of their conduct. Moreover we may observe, that\namong the ancient heathen a public and solemn oath was held in great\nreverence; but that common ones, which they used in their ordinary\nintercourse, were not esteemed of any, or of much importance, because they\nimagined that these were not regarded by the Divine majesty. But it would\nbe too dangerous to condemn private oaths, which are taken, in cases of\nnecessity, with sobriety, integrity, and reverence, since they are\nsupported both by reason and by scriptural examples. For if it be lawful\nfor private persons in an important and serious affair to appeal to God as\na judge between them, much more must it be allowable to invoke him as a\nwitness. Your brother will accuse you of perfidy; you endeavour to\nexculpate yourself; he will not permit himself by any means to be\nsatisfied. If your reputation be endangered by his obstinate malignity,\nyou may, without any offence, appeal to the judgment of God, that in his\nown time he will manifest your innocence. If the words be strictly\nexamined, it is a less thing to appeal to him as a witness than as a\njudge. I see not, therefore, why we should assert such an appeal to him to\nbe unlawful. There are not wanting numerous examples of it. If the oath of\nAbraham and Isaac with Abimelech be alleged to have been taken in a public\ncapacity, certainly Jacob and Laban were private persons, and yet they\nconfirmed the covenant between them by a mutual oath.(862) Boaz was a\nprivate person, who confirmed in the same manner his promise of marriage\nto Ruth.(863) Obadiah was a private person, a righteous man, and one that\nfeared the Lord, who declared with an oath the fact of which he wished to\nconvince Elijah.(864) I can find, therefore, no better rule, than that we\nregulate our oaths in such a manner, that they be not rash or\ninconsiderate, wanton or frivolous, but used in cases of real necessity,\nas for vindicating the glory of the Lord, or promoting the edification of\nour brother; which is the end of this commandment of the law.\n\n\n\nThe Fourth Commandment.\n\n\n    _Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou\n    labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of\n    the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, &c._\n\n\nXXVIII. The end of this precept is, that, being dead to our own affections\nand works, we should meditate on the kingdom of God, and be exercised in\nthat meditation in the observance of his institutions. But, as it has an\naspect peculiar and distinct from the others, it requires a little\ndifferent kind of exposition. The fathers frequently call it a _shadowy\ncommandment_, because it contains the external observance of the day,\nwhich was abolished with the rest of the figures at the advent of Christ.\nAnd there is much truth in their observation; but it reaches only half of\nthe subject. Wherefore it is necessary to seek further for an exposition,\nand to consider three causes, on which I think I have observed this\ncommandment to rest. For it was the design of the heavenly Lawgiver, under\nthe rest of the seventh day, to give the people of Israel a figure of the\nspiritual rest, by which the faithful ought to refrain from their own\nworks, in order to leave God to work within them. His design was,\nsecondly, that there should be a stated day, on which they might assemble\ntogether to hear the law and perform the ceremonies, or at least which\nthey might especially devote to meditations on his works; that by this\nrecollection they might be led to the exercises of piety. Thirdly, he\nthought it right that servants, and persons living under the jurisdiction\nof others, should be indulged with a day of rest, that they might enjoy\nsome remission from their labour.\n\nXXIX. Yet we are taught in many places that this adumbration of the\nspiritual rest was the principal design of the sabbath. For the Lord is\nhardly so strict in his requisitions of obedience to any other\nprecept.(865) When he means to intimate, in the Prophets, that religion is\ntotally subverted, he complains that his sabbaths are polluted, violated,\nneglected, and profaned;(866) as though, in case of that duty being\nneglected, there remained no other way in which he could be honoured. On\nthe other hand, he notices the observance of it with singular encomiums.\nWherefore also, among the other Divine communications, the faithful used\nvery highly to esteem the revelation of the sabbath. For this is the\nlanguage of the Levites in a solemn assembly, recorded by Nehemiah: \u201cThou\nmadest known unto our fathers thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them\nprecepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses.\u201d(867) We see the\nsingular estimation in which it is held above all the commandments of the\nlaw. All these things tend to display the dignity of the mystery, which is\nbeautifully expressed by Moses and Ezekiel. In Exodus we read as follows:\n\u201cVerily my sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you\nthroughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth\nsanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto\nyou. The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath\nthroughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign\nbetween me and the children of Israel for ever.\u201d(868) This is more fully\nexpressed by Ezekiel; but the substance of what he says is, that the\nsabbath was a sign by which the Israelites might know that God was their\nsanctifier.(869) If our sanctification consists properly in the\nmortification of our own will, there is a very natural analogy between the\nexternal sign and the internal thing which it represents. We must rest\naltogether, that God may operate within us; we must recede from our own\nwill, resign our own heart, and renounce all our carnal affections; in\nshort, we must cease from all the efforts of our own understanding, that\nhaving God operating within us, we may enjoy rest in him, as we are also\ntaught by the Apostle.(870)\n\nXXX. This perpetual cessation was represented to the Jews by the\nobservance of one day in seven, which the Lord, in order that it might be\nthe more religiously kept, recommended by his own example. For it is no\nsmall stimulus to any action, for a man to know that he is imitating his\nCreator. If any one inquire after a hidden signification in the septenary\nnumber, it is probable, that because in Scripture it is the number of\nperfection, it is here selected to denote perpetual duration. This is\nconfirmed also by the circumstance, that Moses, with that day in which he\nnarrates that the Lord rested from his works, concludes his description of\nthe succession of days and nights. We may also adduce another probable\nconjecture respecting this number\u2014that the Lord intended to signify that\nthe sabbath would never be completed until the arrival of the last day.\nFor in it we begin that blessed rest, in which we make new advances from\nday to day. But because we are still engaged in a perpetual warfare with\nthe flesh, it will not be consummated before the completion of that\nprediction of Isaiah, \u201cIt shall come to pass, that from one new moon to\nanother, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship\nbefore me, saith the Lord;\u201d(871) that is, when God shall be \u201call in\nall.\u201d(872) The Lord may be considered, therefore, as having delineated to\nhis people, in the seventh day, the future perfection of his sabbath in\nthe last day, that, by a continual meditation on the sabbath during their\nwhole life, they might be aspiring towards this perfection.\n\nXXXI. If any one disapprove of this observation on the number, as too\ncurious, I object not to its being understood in a more simple manner;\nthat the Lord ordained a certain day, that the people under the discipline\nof the law might be exercised in continual meditations on the spiritual\nrest; that he appointed the seventh day, either because he foresaw it\nwould be sufficient, or in order that the proposal of a resemblance to his\nown example might operate as a stronger stimulus to the people, or at\nleast to apprize them that the only end of the sabbath was to promote\ntheir conformity to their Creator. For this is of little importance,\nprovided we retain the mystery, which is principally exhibited, of a\nperpetual rest from our own works. To the contemplation of this, the\nProphets used frequently to recall the Jews, that they might not suppose\nthemselves to have discharged their duty merely by a cessation from manual\nlabours. Beside the passages already cited, we have the following in\nIsaiah: \u201cIf thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy\npleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the\nLord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor\nfinding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou\ndelight thyself in the Lord,\u201d &c.(873) But all that it contained of a\nceremonial nature was without doubt abolished by the advent of the Lord\nChrist. For he is the truth, at whose presence all figures disappear; the\nbody, at the sight of which all the shadows are relinquished. He, I say,\nis the true fulfilment of the sabbath. Having been \u201cburied with him by\nbaptism, we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, that\nbeing partakers of his resurrection, we may walk in newness of life.\u201d(874)\nTherefore the Apostle says in another place, that \u201cthe sabbath was a\nshadow of things to come; but the _body_ is of Christ;\u201d(875) that is, the\nreal substance of the truth, which he has beautifully explained in that\npassage. This is contained not in one day, but in the whole course of our\nlife, till, being wholly dead to ourselves, we be filled with the life of\nGod. Christians therefore ought to depart from all superstitious\nobservance of days.\n\nXXXII. As the two latter causes, however, ought not to be numbered among\nthe ancient shadows, but are equally suitable to all ages,\u2014though the\nsabbath is abrogated, yet it is still customary among us to assemble on\nstated days for hearing the word, for breaking the mystic bread, and for\npublic prayers; and also to allow servants and labourers a remission from\ntheir labour. That in commanding the sabbath, the Lord had regard to both\nthese things, cannot be doubted. The first is abundantly confirmed even by\nthe practice of the Jews. The second is proved by Moses, in Deuteronomy,\nin these words: \u201cthat thy man\u2010servant and thy maid\u2010servant may rest as\nwell as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of\nEgypt.\u201d(876) Also, in Exodus: \u201cthat thine ox and thine ass may rest, and\nthe son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.\u201d(877) Who can\ndeny that both these things are as proper for us as for the Jews?\nAssemblies of the Church are enjoined in the Divine word, and the\nnecessity of them is sufficiently known even from the experience of life.\nUnless there be stated days appointed for them, how can they be held?\nAccording to the direction of the Apostle, \u201call things\u201d are to \u201cbe done\ndecently and in order\u201d among us.(878) But so far is it from being possible\nto preserve order and decorum without this regulation, that, if it were\nabolished, the Church would be in imminent danger of immediate convulsion\nand ruin. But if we feel the same necessity, to relieve which the Lord\nenjoined the sabbath upon the Jews, let no one plead that it does not\nbelong to us. For our most provident and indulgent Father has been no less\nattentive to provide for our necessity than for that of the Jews. But why,\nit may be asked, do we not rather assemble on every day, that so all\ndistinction of days may be removed? I sincerely wish that this were\npractised; and truly spiritual wisdom would be well worthy of some portion\nof time being daily allotted to it; but if the infirmity of many persons\nwill not admit of daily assemblies, and charity does not permit us to\nrequire more of them, why should we not obey the rule which we have\nimposed upon us by the will of God?\n\nXXXIII. I am obliged to be rather more diffuse on this point, because, in\nthe present age, some unquiet spirits have been raising noisy contentions\nrespecting the Lord\u2019s day. They complain that Christians are tinctured\nwith Judaism, because they retain any observance of days. But I reply,\nthat the Lord\u2019s day is not observed by us upon the principles of Judaism;\nbecause in this respect the difference between us and the Jews is very\ngreat. For we celebrate it not with scrupulous rigour, as a ceremony which\nwe conceive to be a figure of some spiritual mystery, but only use it as a\nremedy necessary to the preservation of order in the Church. But they say,\nPaul teaches that Christians are not to be judged in the observance of it,\nbecause it is a shadow of something future.(879) Therefore he is \u201cafraid\nlest\u201d he has \u201cbestowed\u201d on the Galatians \u201clabour in vain,\u201d because they\ncontinued to \u201cobserve days.\u201d(880) And in the Epistle to the Romans, he\nasserts him to be \u201cweak in the faith,\u201d who \u201cesteemeth one day above\nanother.\u201d(881) But who, these furious zealots only excepted, does not see\nwhat observance the apostle intends? For they did not observe them for the\nsake of political and ecclesiastical order; but when they retained them as\nshadows of spiritual things, they were so far guilty of obscuring the\nglory of Christ and the light of the gospel. They did not, therefore, rest\nfrom their manual labours, as from employments which would divert them\nfrom sacred studies and meditations; but from a principle of superstition,\nimagining their cessation from labour to be still an expression of\nreverence for the mysteries formerly represented by it. This preposterous\ndistinction of days the Apostle strenuously opposes; and not that\nlegitimate difference which promotes the peace of the Christian Church.\nFor in the churches which he founded, the sabbath was retained for this\npurpose. He prescribes the same day to the Corinthians, for making\ncollections for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem. If superstition\nbe an object of fear, there was more danger in the holy days of the Jews,\nthan in the Lord\u2019s days now observed by Christians. Now, whereas it was\nexpedient for the destruction of superstition, the day which the Jews kept\nholy was abolished; and it being necessary for the preservation of\ndecorum, order, and peace, in the Christian Church, another day was\nappointed for the same use.\n\nXXXIV. However, the ancients have not without sufficient reason\nsubstituted what we call the Lord\u2019s day in the room of the sabbath. For\nsince the resurrection of the Lord is the end and consummation of that\ntrue rest, which was adumbrated by the ancient sabbath, the same day which\nput an end to the shadows, admonishes Christians not to adhere to a\nshadowy ceremony. Yet I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number,\nthat I would oblige the Church to an invariable adherence to it; nor will\nI condemn those churches which have other solemn days for their\nassemblies, provided they keep at a distance from superstition. And this\nwill be the case, if they be only designed for the observance of\ndiscipline and well\u2010regulated order. Let us sum up the whole in the\nfollowing manner: As the truth was delivered to the Jews under a figure,\nso it is given to us without any shadows; first, in order that during our\nwhole life we should meditate on a perpetual rest from our own works, that\nthe Lord may operate within us by his Spirit; secondly, that every man,\nwhenever he has leisure, should diligently exercise himself in private in\npious reflections on the works of God, and also that we should at the same\ntime observe the legitimate order of the Church, appointed for the hearing\nof the word, for the administration of the sacraments, and for public\nprayer; thirdly, that we should not unkindly oppress those who are subject\nto us. Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past ages have\ninfected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming that nothing but the\nceremonial part of this commandment, which, according to them, is the\nappointment of the seventh day, has been abrogated, but that the moral\npart of it, that is, the observance of one day in seven, still remains.\nBut this is only changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they\nretain the same opinion of the holiness of a day; for on this principle\nthe same mysterious signification would still be attributed to particular\ndays, which they formerly obtained among the Jews. And indeed we see what\nadvantages have arisen from such a sentiment. For those who adhere to it,\nfar exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and superstitious observance of\nthe sabbath; so that the reproofs, which we find in Isaiah, are equally\napplicable to them in the present age, as to those whom the Prophet\nreproved in his time. But the principal thing to be remembered is the\ngeneral doctrine; that, lest religion decay or languish among us, sacred\nassemblies ought diligently to be held, and that we ought to use those\nexternal means which are adapted to support the worship of God.\n\n\n\nThe Fifth Commandment.\n\n\n    _Honour thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon\n    the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee._\n\n\nXXXV. The end of this precept is, that since the Lord God desires the\npreservation of the order he has appointed, the degrees of pre\u00ebminence\nfixed by him ought to be inviolably preserved. The sum of it, therefore,\nwill be, that we should reverence them whom God has exalted to any\nauthority over us, and should render them honour, obedience, and\ngratitude. Whence follows a prohibition to derogate from their dignity by\ncontempt, obstinacy, or ingratitude. For in the Scripture the word\n\u201chonour\u201d has an extensive signification; as, when the Apostle directs that\n\u201cthe elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honour,\u201d(882) he\nmeans not only that they are entitled to reverence, but likewise such a\nremuneration as their ministry deserves. But as this precept, which\nenjoins subjection to superiors, is exceedingly repugnant to the depravity\nof human nature, whose ardent desire of exaltation will scarcely admit of\nsubjection, it has therefore proposed as an example that kind of\nsuperiority which is naturally most amiable and least invidious; because\nthat might the more easily mollify and incline our minds to a habit of\nsubmission. By that subjection, therefore, which is most easy to be borne,\nthe Lord accustoms us by degrees to every kind of legitimate obedience;\nbecause the reason of all is the same. For to those, to whom he gives any\npre\u00ebminence, he communicates his own authority, as far as is necessary for\nthe preservation of that pre\u00ebminence. The titles of Father, God, and Lord,\nare so eminently applicable to him, that, whenever we hear either of them\nmentioned, our minds cannot but be strongly affected with a sense of his\nmajesty. Those, therefore, on whom he bestows these titles, he illuminates\nwith a ray of his splendour, to render them all honourable in their\nrespective stations. Thus in a father we ought to recognize something\nDivine; for it is not without reason that he bears one of the titles of\nthe Deity. Our prince, or our lord, enjoys an honour somewhat similar to\nthat which is given to God.\n\nXXXVI. Wherefore it ought not to be doubted that God here lays down a\nuniversal rule for our conduct; namely, that to every one, whom we know to\nbe placed in authority over us by his appointment, we should render\nreverence, obedience, gratitude, and all the other services in our power.\nNor does it make any difference, whether they are worthy of this honour,\nor not. For whatever be their characters, yet it is not without the\nappointment of the Divine providence, that they have attained that\nstation, on account of which the supreme Legislator has commanded them to\nbe honoured. He has particularly enjoined reverence to our parents, who\nhave brought us into this life; which nature itself ought to teach us. For\nthose who violate the parental authority by contempt or rebellion, are not\nmen, but monsters. Therefore the Lord commands all those, who are\ndisobedient to their parents, to be put to death, as having rendered\nthemselves unworthy to enjoy the light, by their disregard of those by\nwhose means they were introduced to it. And various appendices to the law\nevince the truth of our observation, that the honour here intended\nconsists in reverence, obedience, and gratitude. The first the Lord\nconfirms, when he commands him to be slain who has cursed his father or\nmother;(883) for in that case he punishes contempt. He confirms the\nsecond, when he denounces the punishment of death against disobedient and\nrebellious children.(884) The third is supported by Christ, who says, \u201cGod\ncommanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother;\u201d and, \u201cHe that curseth\nfather or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say\nto his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be\nprofited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.\nThus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your\ntradition.\u201d(885) And whenever Paul mentions this commandment, he explains\nit as a requisition of obedience.(886)\n\nXXXVII. In order to recommend it, a promise is annexed, which is a further\nintimation how acceptable to God that submission is which is here\nenjoined. Paul employs that stimulus to arouse our inattention, when he\nsays, \u201cThis is the first commandment with promise.\u201d For the preceding\npromise, in the first table, was not particularly confined to one\ncommandment, but extended to the whole law. Now, the true explanation of\nthis promise is, that the Lord spake particularly to the Israelites\nconcerning the land which he had promised them as an inheritance. If the\npossession of that land therefore was a pledge of the Divine goodness, we\nneed not wonder, if it was the Lord\u2019s will to manifest his favour by\nbestowing length of life, in order to prolong the enjoyment of the\nblessing conferred by him. The meaning of it therefore is, Honour thy\nfather and thy mother, that through the space of a long life thou mayest\nenjoy the possession of the land, which will be to thee a testimony of my\nfavour. But, as the whole earth is blessed to the faithful, we justly\nplace the present life among the blessings we receive from God. Wherefore\nthis promise belongs likewise to us, inasmuch as the continuance of the\npresent life affords us a proof of the Divine benevolence. For neither is\nit promised to us, nor was it promised to the Jews, as though it contained\nany blessedness in itself; but because to the pious it is generally a\ntoken of the Divine favour. Therefore, if a son, that is obedient to his\nparents, happen to be removed out of life before the age of\nmaturity,\u2014which is a case of frequent occurrence,\u2014the Lord, nevertheless,\nperseveres with as much punctuality in the completion of his promise, as\nif he were to reward a person with a hundred acres of land to whom he had\nonly promised one. The whole consists in this: We should consider that\nlong life is promised to us so far as it is the blessing of God; but that\nit is a blessing, only as it is a proof of the favour of God, which he\ninfinitely more richly and substantially testifies and actually\ndemonstrates to his servants in their death.\n\nXXXVIII. Moreover, when the Lord promises the blessing of the present life\nto those children who honour their parents with proper reverence, he at\nthe same time implies that a certain curse impends over all those who are\ndisobedient and perverse. And that it might not fail of being executed, he\npronounces them in his law to be liable to the sentence of death, and\ncommands that punishment to be inflicted on them. If they escape that, he\npunishes them himself in some other way. For we see what great numbers of\npersons of this character fall in battles and in private quarrels; others\nare afflicted in unusual ways; and almost all of them are proofs of the\ntruth of this threatening. But if any arrive at an extreme age, being\ndeprived of the Divine blessing, they only languish in misery in this\nlife, and are reserved to greater punishments hereafter; and consequently\nthey are far from participating in the blessing promised to dutiful\nchildren. But it must be remarked by the way, that we are commanded to\nobey them only \u201cin the Lord;\u201d and this is evident from the foundation\nbefore laid; for they preside in that station to which the Lord has\nexalted them by communicating to them a portion of his honour. Wherefore\nthe submission exercised towards them ought to be a step towards honouring\nthe Supreme Father. Therefore, if they instigate us to any transgression\nof the law, we may justly consider them not as parents, but as strangers,\nwho attempt to seduce us from obedience to our real Father. The same\nobservation is applicable to princes, lords, and superiors of every\ndescription. For it is infamous and absurd, that their eminence should\navail to depreciate the pre\u00ebminence of God, upon which it depends, and to\nwhich it ought to conduct us.\n\n\n\nThe Sixth Commandment.\n\n\n    _Thou shalt not kill._\n\n\nXXXIX. The end of this precept is, that since God has connected mankind\ntogether in a kind of unity, every man ought to consider himself as\ncharged with the safety of all. In short, then, all violence and\ninjustice, and every kind of mischief, which may injure the body of our\nneighbour, are forbidden to us. And therefore we are enjoined, if it be in\nour power, to assist in protecting the lives of our neighbours; to exert\nourselves with fidelity for this purpose; to procure those things which\nconduce to their tranquillity; to be vigilant in shielding them from\ninjuries; and in cases of danger to afford them our assistance. If we\nremember that this is the language of the Divine Legislator, we should\nconsider, at the same time, that he intends this rule to govern the soul.\nFor it were ridiculous, that he who beholds the thoughts of the heart, and\nprincipally insists on them, should content himself with forming only the\nbody to true righteousness. Mental homicide, therefore, is likewise\nprohibited, and an internal disposition to preserve the life of our\nbrother is commanded in this law. The hand, indeed, accomplishes the\nhomicide, but it is conceived by the mind under the influence of anger and\nhatred. Examine whether you can be angry with your brother, without being\ninflamed with a desire of doing him some injury. If you cannot be angry\nwith him, then you cannot hate him; for hatred is nothing more than\ninveterate anger. However you may dissemble, and endeavour to extricate\nyourself by vain subterfuges, whenever there is either anger or hatred,\nthere is also a disposition to do injury. If you persist in your evasions,\nit is already pronounced by the Holy Spirit, that \u201cWhosoever hateth his\nbrother is a murderer.\u201d(887) It is declared by the Lord Christ, \u201cthat\nwhosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of\nthe judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in\ndanger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in\ndanger of hell fire.\u201d(888)\n\nXL. Now, the Scripture states two reasons on which this precept is\nfounded; the first, that man is the image of God; the second, that he is\nour own flesh. Wherefore, unless we would violate the image of God, we\nought to hold the personal safety of our neighbour inviolably sacred; and\nunless we would divest ourselves of humanity, we ought to cherish him as\nour own flesh. The motives which are derived from the redemption and grace\nof Christ will be treated in another place. These two characters, which\nare inseparable from the nature of man, God requires us to consider as\nmotives to our exertions for his security; so that we may reverence his\nimage impressed on him, and show an affectionate regard for our own flesh.\nThat person, therefore, is not innocent of the crime of murder, who has\nmerely restrained himself from the effusion of blood. If you perpetrate,\nif you attempt, if you only conceive in your mind any thing inimical to\nthe safety of another, you stand guilty of murder. Unless you also\nendeavour to defend him to the utmost of your ability and opportunity, you\nare guilty of the same inhuman transgression of the law. But if so much\nconcern be discovered for the safety of the body, we may conclude, how\nmuch care and attention should be devoted to the safety of the soul,\nwhich, in the sight of God, is of infinitely superior value.\n\n\n\nThe Seventh Commandment.\n\n\n    _Thou shalt not commit adultery._\n\n\nXLI. The end of this precept is, that because God loves chastity and\npurity, we ought to depart from all uncleanness. The sum of it therefore\nis, that we ought not to be polluted by any carnal impurity, or libidinous\nintemperance. To this prohibition corresponds the affirmative injunction,\nthat every part of our lives ought to be regulated by chastity and\ncontinence. But he expressly forbids adultery, to which all incontinence\ntends; in order that by the turpitude of that which is very gross and\npalpable, being an infamous pollution of the body, he may lead us to\nabominate every unlawful passion. Since man was created in such a state as\nnot to live a solitary life, but to be united to a help\u2010meet; and moreover\nsince the curse of sin has increased this necessity,\u2014the Lord has afforded\nus ample assistance in this case by the institution of marriage\u2014a\nconnection which he has not only originated by his authority, but also\nsanctified by his blessing. Whence it appears, that every other union, but\nthat of marriage, is cursed in his sight; and that the conjugal union\nitself is appointed as a remedy for our necessity, that we may not break\nout into unrestrained licentiousness. Let us not flatter ourselves,\ntherefore, since we hear that there can be no cohabitation of male and\nfemale, except in marriage, without the curse of God.\n\nXLII. Now, since the original constitution of human nature, and the\nviolence of the passions consequent upon the fall, have rendered a union\nof the sexes doubly necessary, except to those whom God has exempted from\nthat necessity by peculiar grace, let every one carefully examine what is\ngiven to him. Virginity, I acknowledge, is a virtue not to be despised.\nBut as this is denied to some, and to others is granted only for a season,\nlet those who are troubled with incontinence, and cannot succeed in\nresisting it, avail themselves of the help of marriage, that they may\npreserve their chastity according to the degree of their calling. For\npersons who \u201ccannot receive this saying,\u201d(889) if they do not assist their\nfrailty by the remedy offered and granted to them, oppose God and resist\nhis ordinance. Here let no one object, as many do in the present day, that\nwith the help of God he can do all things. For the assistance of God is\ngranted only to them who walk in his ways, that is, in their calling;\nwhich is deserted by all those who neglect the means which God has\nafforded them, and strive to overcome their necessities by vain\npresumption. That continence is a peculiar gift of God, and of that kind\nwhich is not imparted promiscuously, or to the whole body of the Church,\nbut only conferred on a few of its members, is affirmed by our Lord. For\nhe mentions a certain class of men who \u201chave made themselves eunuchs for\nthe kingdom of heaven\u2019s sake;\u201d(890) that is, that they might be more at\nliberty to devote their attention to the affairs of the kingdom of heaven.\nBut that no one might suppose this to be in the power of man, he had\nalready declared that \u201call men cannot receive this saying, save they to\nwhom it is given.\u201d And he concludes, \u201cHe that is able to receive it, let\nhim receive it.\u201d Paul is still more explicit, when he says, that \u201cevery\nman hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after\nthat.\u201d(891)\n\nXLIII. Since we are so expressly apprized that it is not in the power of\nevery one to preserve chastity in celibacy, even with the most strenuous\nefforts for that purpose, and that it is a peculiar grace, which the Lord\nconfers only on particular persons, that he may have them more ready for\nhis service, do we not resist God, and strive against the nature\ninstituted by him, unless we accommodate our manner of life to the measure\nof our ability? In this commandment the Lord prohibits adultery: therefore\nhe requires of us purity and chastity. The only way of preserving this is,\nthat every one should measure himself by his own capacity. Let no one\nrashly despise marriage as a thing useless or unnecessary to him; let no\none prefer celibacy, unless he can dispense with a wife. And in that state\nlet him not consult his carnal tranquillity or advantage, but only that,\nbeing exempted from this restraint, he may be the more prompt and ready\nfor all the duties of piety. Moreover, as this benefit is conferred upon\nmany persons only for a season, let every one refrain from marriage as\nlong as he shall be capable of supporting a life of celibacy. When his\nstrength fails to overcome his passions, let him consider that the Lord\nhas laid him under a necessity of marrying. This is evident from the\ndirection of the Apostle: \u201cTo avoid fornication, let every man have his\nown wife, and let every woman have her own husband.\u201d Again: \u201cIf they\ncannot contain, let them marry.\u201d(892) Here, in the first place, he\nsignifies that the majority of men are subject to the vice of\nincontinence; in the next place, of those who are subject to it, he makes\nno exception, but enjoins them all to have recourse to that sole remedy\nwhich obviates unchastity. Those who are incontinent, therefore, if they\nneglect this method of curing their infirmity, are guilty of sin, in not\nobeying this injunction of the Apostle. And let not him who refrains from\nactual fornication, flatter himself, as though he could not be charged\nwith unchastity, while his heart at the same time is inflamed with\nlibidinous desire. For Paul defines chastity to consist in sanctity of\nmind connected with purity of body. \u201cThe unmarried woman,\u201d he says,\n\u201ccareth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and\nin spirit.\u201d(893) Therefore, when he gives a reason to confirm the\npreceding injunction, he does not content himself with saying that it is\nbetter for a man to marry than to pollute himself with the society of a\nharlot, but affirms that \u201cit is better to marry than to burn.\u201d(894)\n\nXLIV. Now, if married persons are satisfied that their society is attended\nwith the blessing of the Lord, they are thereby admonished that it must\nnot be contaminated by libidinous and dissolute intemperance. For if the\nhonour of marriage conceals the shame of incontinence, it ought not on\nthat account to be made an incitement to it. Wherefore let it not be\nsupposed by married persons that all things are lawful to them. Every man\nshould observe sobriety towards his wife, and every wife, reciprocally,\ntowards her husband; conducting themselves in such a manner as to do\nnothing unbecoming the decorum and temperance of marriage. For thus ought\nmarriage contracted in the Lord to be regulated by moderation and modesty,\nand not to break out into the vilest lasciviousness. Such sensuality has\nbeen stigmatized by Ambrose with a severe, but not unmerited censure, when\nhe calls those who in their conjugal intercourse have no regard to modesty\nor decorum, the adulterers of their own wives. Lastly, let us consider who\nthe Legislator is, by whom adultery is here condemned. It is no other than\nhe who ought to have the entire possession of us, and justly requires the\nwhole of our spirit, soul, and body. Therefore, when he prohibits us from\ncommitting adultery, he at the same time forbids us, either by\nlasciviously ornamenting our persons, or by obscene gesticulations, or by\nimpure expressions, insidiously to attack the chastity of others. For\nthere is much reason in the address of Archelaus to a young man clothed in\nan immoderately effeminate and delicate manner, that it was immaterial in\nwhat part he was immodest, with respect to God, who abominates all\ncontamination, in whatever part it may discover itself, either of soul or\nof body. And that there may be no doubt on the subject, let us remember\nthat God here recommends chastity. If the Lord requires chastity of us, he\ncondemns every thing contrary to it. Wherefore, if we aspire to obedience,\nneither let our mind internally burn with depraved concupiscence, nor let\nour eyes wanton into corrupt affections, nor let our body be adorned for\npurposes of seduction, nor let our tongue with impure speeches allure our\nmind to similar thoughts, nor let us inflame ourselves with intemperance.\nFor all these vices are stains, by which the purity of chastity is\ndefiled.\n\n\n\nThe Eighth Commandment.\n\n\n    _Thou shalt not steal._\n\n\nXLV. The end of this precept is, that, as injustice is an abomination to\nGod, every man may possess what belongs to him. The sum of it, then, is,\nthat we are forbidden to covet the property of others, and are therefore\nenjoined faithfully to use our endeavours to preserve to every man what\njustly belongs to him. For we ought to consider, that what a man possesses\nhas fallen to his lot, not by a fortuitous contingency, but by the\ndistribution of the supreme Lord of all; and that therefore no man can be\ndeprived of his possessions by criminal methods, without an injury being\ndone to the Divine dispenser of them. But the species of theft are\nnumerous. One consists in violence; when the property of any person is\nplundered by force and predatory license. Another consists in malicious\nimposture; when it is taken away in a fraudulent manner. Another consists\nin more secret cunning; where any one is deprived of his property under\nthe mask of justice. Another consists in flatteries; where we are cheated\nunder the pretence of a donation. But not to dwell too long on the recital\nof the different species of theft, let us remember that all artifices by\nwhich the possessions and wealth of our neighbours are transferred to us,\nwhenever they deviate from sincere love into a desire of deceiving, or\ndoing any kind of injury, are to be esteemed acts of theft. This is the\nonly view in which God considers them, even though the property may be\ngained by a suit at law. For he sees the tedious man\u0153uvres with which the\ndesigning man begins to decoy his more simple neighbour, till at length he\nentangles him in his snares. He sees the cruel and inhuman laws, by which\nthe more powerful man oppresses and ruins him that is weaker. He sees the\nbaits with which the more crafty trap the imprudent. All which things are\nconcealed from the judgment of man, nor ever come to his knowledge. And\nthis kind of injury relates not only to money, or to goods, or to lands,\nbut to whatever each individual is justly entitled to; for we defraud our\nneighbours of their property, if we deny them those kind offices, which it\nis our duty to perform to them. If an idle agent or steward devour the\nsubstance of his master, and be inattentive to the care of his domestic\naffairs; if he either improperly waste, or squander with a luxurious\nprofusion, the property intrusted to him; if a servant deride his master,\nif he divulge his secrets, if by any means he betray either his life or\nhis property; and if, on the other hand, a master inhumanly oppress his\nfamily,\u2014God holds him guilty of theft. For the property of others is\nwithheld and misapplied by him, who does not perform towards them those\noffices which the duty of his situation requires of him.\n\nXLVI. We shall rightly obey this commandment therefore, if, contented with\nour own lot, we seek no gain but in an honest and lawful way; if we\nneither desire to enrich ourselves by injustice, nor attempt to ruin the\nfortune of our neighbour, in order to increase our own; if we do not\nlabour to accumulate wealth by cruelty, and at the expense of the blood of\nothers; if we do not greedily scrape together from every quarter,\nregardless of right or wrong, whatever may conduce to satiate our avarice\nor support our prodigality. On the contrary, it should be our constant\naim, as far as possible, faithfully to assist all by our advice and our\nproperty in preserving what belongs to them; but if we are concerned with\nperfidious and fallacious men, let us be prepared rather to recede a\nlittle from our just right than to contend with them. Moreover, let us\ncommunicate to the necessities, and according to our ability alleviate the\npoverty, of those whom we perceive to be pressed by any embarrassment of\ntheir circumstances. Lastly, let every man examine what obligations his\nduty lays him under to others, and let him faithfully discharge the duties\nwhich he owes them. For this reason the people should honour their\ngovernors, patiently submit to their authority, obey their laws and\nmandates, and resist nothing, to which they can submit consistently with\nthe Divine will. On the other hand, let governors take care of their\npeople, preserve the public peace, protect the good, punish the wicked,\nand administer all things in such a manner, as becomes those who must\nrender an account of their office to God the supreme Judge. Let the\nministers of churches faithfully devote themselves to the ministry of the\nword, and let them never adulterate the doctrine of salvation, but deliver\nit pure and uncontaminated to the people of God. Let them teach, not only\nby their doctrine, but by the example of their lives; in a word, let them\npreside as good shepherds over the sheep. Let the people, on their part,\nreceive them as the messengers and apostles of God, render to them that\nhonour to which the supreme Master has exalted them, and furnish them with\nthe necessaries of life. Let parents undertake the support, government,\nand instruction of their children, as committed by God to their care; nor\nlet them exasperate their minds and alienate their affections from them by\ncruelty, but cherish and embrace them with the lenity and indulgence\nbecoming their character. And that obedience is due to them from their\nchildren has been before observed. Let juniors revere old age, since the\nLord has designed that age to be honourable. Let old men, by their\nprudence and superior experience, guide the imbecility of youth; not\nteasing them with sharp and clamorous invectives, but tempering severity\nwith mildness and affability. Let servants show themselves obedient and\ndiligent in the service of their masters; and that not only in appearance,\nbut from the heart, as serving God himself. Neither let masters behave\nmorosely and perversely to their servants, harassing them with excessive\nasperity, or treating them with contempt; but rather acknowledge them as\ntheir brethren and companions in the service of the heavenly Master,\nentitled to be regarded with mutual affection, and to receive kind\ntreatment. In this manner, I say, let every man consider what duties he\nowes to his neighbours, according to the relations he sustains; and those\nduties let him discharge. Moreover, our attention should always be\ndirected to the Legislator; to remind us that this law is ordained for our\nhearts as much as for our hands, in order that men may study both to\nprotect the property and to promote the interests of others.\n\n\n\nThe Ninth Commandment.\n\n\n    _Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour._\n\n\nXLVII. The end of this precept is, that because God, who is truth itself,\nexecrates a lie, we ought to preserve the truth without the least\ndisguise. The sum of it therefore is, that we neither violate the\ncharacter of any man, either by calumnies or by false accusations, nor\ndistress him in his property by falsehood, nor injure him by detraction or\nimpertinence. This prohibition is connected with an injunction to do all\nthe service we can to every man, by affirming the truth for the protection\nof his reputation and his property. The Lord seems to have intended the\nfollowing words as an exposition of this command: \u201cThou shalt not raise a\nfalse report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous\nwitness.\u201d Again: \u201cKeep thee far from a false matter.\u201d(895) In another\nplace also he not only forbids us to practise backbiting and tale\u2010bearing\namong the people, but prohibits every man from deceiving his brother;(896)\nfor he cautions us against both in distinct commandments. Indeed there is\nno doubt but that, as, in the preceding precepts, he has prohibited\ncruelty, impurity, and avarice, so in this he forbids falsehood; of which\nthere are two branches, as we have before observed. For either we\ntransgress against the reputation of our neighbours by malignity and\nperverse detraction, or by falsehood and sometimes by obloquy we injure\ntheir interests. It is immaterial whether we suppose the testimony here\ndesigned to be solemn and judicial, or a common one, which is delivered in\nprivate conversations. For we must always recur to this maxim\u2014that, of\neach of the separate kinds of vices, one species is proposed as an\nexample, to which the rest may be referred; and that, in general, the\nspecies selected is that in which the turpitude of the vice is most\nconspicuous. It is proper, however, to extend it more generally to\ncalumnies and detraction, by which our neighbours are unjustly harassed;\nbecause falsehood in a forensic testimony is always attended with perjury.\nBut perjury, being a profanation and violation of the name of God, has\nalready been sufficiently condemned in the third commandment. Wherefore\nthe legitimate observance of this precept is, that our tongue, by\nasserting the truth, ought to serve both the reputation and the profit of\nour neighbours. The equity of this is self\u2010evident. For if a good name be\nmore precious than any treasures whatever, a man sustains as great an\ninjury when he is deprived of the integrity of his character, as when he\nis despoiled of his wealth. And in plundering his substance, there is\nsometimes as much effected by false testimony, as by the hands of\nviolence.\n\nXLVIII. Nevertheless, it is wonderful with what supine security this\nprecept is generally transgressed, so that few persons can be found, who\nare not notoriously subject to this malady; we are so fascinated with the\nmalignant pleasure of examining and detecting the faults of others. Nor\nshould we suppose it to be a sufficient excuse, that in many cases we\ncannot be charged with falsehood. For he who forbids the character of our\nbrother to be bespattered with falsehood, wills also that as far as the\ntruth will permit, it be preserved immaculate. For although he only guards\nit against falsehood, he thereby suggests that it is committed to his\ncharge. But this should be sufficient to induce us to defend the fair\ncharacter of our neighbour\u2014that God concerns himself in its protection.\nWherefore detraction is, without doubt, universally condemned. Now, by\ndetraction we mean, not reproof, which is given from a motive of\ncorrection; not accusation or judicial denunciation, by which recompense\nis demanded for an injury; not public reprehension, which tends to strike\nterror into other offenders; not a discovery to them whose safety depends\non their being previously warned, that they may not be endangered through\nignorance; but odious crimination, which arises from malice, and a violent\npropensity to detraction. This commandment also extends so far as to\nforbid us to affect a pleasantry tinctured with scurrilous and bitter\nsarcasms, severely lashing the faults of others under the appearance of\nsport; which is the practice of some who aim at the praise of raillery, to\nthe prejudice of the modesty and feelings of others; for such wantonness\nsometimes fixes a lasting stigma on the characters of our brethren. Now,\nif we turn our eyes to the Legislator whose proper right it is to rule our\nears and our minds, as much as our tongues, it will certainly appear that\nan avidity of hearing detraction, and an unreasonable propensity to\nunfavourable opinions respecting others, are equally prohibited. For it\nwould be ridiculous for any one to suppose that God hates slander in the\ntongue, and does not reprobate malice in the heart. Wherefore, if we\npossess the true fear and love of God, let us make it our study, that as\nfar as is practicable and expedient, and consistent with charity, we\ndevote neither our tongues nor our ears to opprobrious and malicious\nraillery, nor inadvertently attend to unfavourable suspicions; but that,\nputting fair constructions on every man\u2019s words and actions, we regulate\nour hearts, our ears, and our tongues, with a view to preserve the\nreputation of all around us.\n\n\n\nThe Tenth Commandment.\n\n\n    _Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour\u2019s house, thou shalt not covet\n    thy neighbour\u2019s wife, nor his man\u2010servant, nor his maid\u2010servant,\n    nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour\u2019s._\n\n\nXLIX. The end of this precept is, that, since it is the will of God that\nour whole soul should be under the influence of love, every desire\ninconsistent with charity ought to be expelled from our minds. The sum,\nthen, will be, that no thought should obtrude itself upon us, which would\nexcite in our minds any desire that is noxious, and tends to the detriment\nof another. To which corresponds the affirmative precept, that all our\nconceptions, deliberations, resolutions, and undertakings, ought to be\nconsistent with the benefit and advantage of our neighbours. But here we\nmeet with what appears to be a great and perplexing difficulty. For if our\nprevious assertions be true, that the terms _adultery_ and _theft_\ncomprehend the licentious desire, and the injurious and criminal\nintention, this may be thought to have superseded the necessity of a\nseparate command being afterwards introduced, forbidding us to covet the\npossessions of others. But we shall easily solve this difficulty by a\ndistinction between intention and concupiscence. For an intention, as we\nhave before observed in explaining the former commandments, is a\ndeliberate consent of the will, when the mind has been enslaved by any\nunlawful desire. Concupiscence may exist without such deliberation or\nconsent, when the mind is only attracted and stimulated by vain and\ncorrupt objects. As the Lord, therefore, has hitherto commanded our wills,\nefforts, and actions to be subject to the law of love, so now he directs\nthat the conceptions of our minds be subject to the same regulation, lest\nany of them be corrupt and perverted, and give our hearts an improper\nimpulse. As he has forbidden our minds to be inclined and persuaded to\nanger, hatred, adultery, rapine, and falsehood, so now he prohibits them\nfrom being instigated to these vices.\n\nL. Nor is it without cause that he requires such consummate rectitude. For\nwho can deny that it is reasonable for all the powers of our souls to be\nunder the influence of love? But if any one deviate from the path of love,\nwho can deny that that soul is in an unhealthy state? Now, whence is it,\nthat your mind conceives desires prejudicial to your neighbour, but that,\nneglecting his interest, you consult nothing but your own? For if your\nheart were full of love, there would be no part of it exposed to such\nimaginations. It must therefore be destitute of love, so far as it is the\nseat of concupiscence. Some one will object, that it is unreasonable, that\nimaginations, which without reflection flutter about in the mind, and then\nvanish away, should be condemned as symptoms of concupiscence, which has\nits seat in the heart. I reply, that the present question relates to that\nkind of imaginations, which, when they are presented to our\nunderstandings, at the same time strike our hearts, and inflame them with\ncupidity; since the mind never entertains a wish for any thing after which\nthe heart is not excited to pant. Therefore God enjoins a wonderful ardour\nof love, which he will not allow to be interrupted even by the smallest\ndegree of concupiscence. He requires a heart admirably well regulated,\nwhich he permits not to be disturbed with the least emotion contrary to\nthe law of love. Do not imagine that this doctrine is unsupported by any\ngreat authority; for I derived the first idea of it from Augustine. Now,\nthough the design of the Lord was to prohibit us from all corrupt desires,\nyet he has exhibited, as examples, those objects which most generally\ndeceive us with a fallacious appearance of pleasure; that he might not\nleave any thing to concupiscence, after having driven it from those\nobjects towards which it is most violently inclined. Behold, then, the\nsecond table of the law, which sufficiently instructs us in the duties we\nowe to men for the sake of God, on regard to whom the whole rule of love\ndepends. The duties taught in this second table, therefore, we shall\ninculcate in vain, unless our instruction be founded on the fear and\nreverence of God. To divide the prohibition of concupiscence into two\nprecepts, the discerning reader, without any comment of mine, will\npronounce to be a corrupt and violent separation of what is but one. Nor\nis the repetition of this phrase, \u201cThou shalt not covet,\u201d any objection\nagainst us; because, having mentioned the house or family, God enumerates\nthe different parts of it, beginning with the wife. Hence it clearly\nappears that it ought to be read, as it is correctly read by the Hebrews,\nin one continued connection; and in short, that God commands, that all\nthat every man possesses remain safe and entire, not only from any actual\ninjury or fraudulent intention, but even from the least emotion of\ncupidity that can solicit our hearts.\n\nLI. But what is the tendency of the whole law, will not now be difficult\nto judge: it is to a perfection of righteousness, that it may form the\nlife of man after the example of the Divine purity. For God has so\ndelineated his own character in it, that the man who exemplifies in his\nactions the precepts it contains, will exhibit in his life, as it were, an\nimage of God. Wherefore, when Moses would recall the substance of it to\nthe remembrance of the Israelites, he said, \u201cAnd now, Israel, what doth\nthe Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in\nall his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy\nheart, and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord?\u201d(897)\nNor did he cease to reiterate the same things to them, whenever he\nintended to point out the end of the law. The tendency of the doctrine of\nthe law is to connect man with his God, and, as Moses elsewhere expresses\nit, to make him cleave to the Lord in sanctity of life.(898) Now, the\nperfection of this sanctity consists in two principal points, already\nrecited\u2014\u201cthat we love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all\nour soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind; and our\nneighbour as ourselves.\u201d(899) And the first is, that our souls be\ncompletely filled with the love of God. From this the love of our\nneighbour will naturally follow; as the Apostle signifies, when he says,\nthat \u201cthe end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a\ngood conscience, and of faith unfeigned.\u201d(900) Here we find a good\nconscience and faith unfeigned, that is, in a word, true piety, stated to\nbe the grand source from which charity is derived. He is deceived,\ntherefore, who supposes that the law teaches nothing but certain rudiments\nand first principles of righteousness, by which men are introduced to the\ncommencement, but are not directed to the true goal of good works; since\nbeyond the former sentence of Moses, and the latter of Paul, nothing\nfurther can be wanted to the highest perfection. For how far will he wish\nto proceed, who will not be content with this instruction, by which man is\ndirected to the fear of God, to the spiritual worship of him, to the\nobservance of his commands, to persevering rectitude in the way of the\nLord, to purity of conscience, and sincere faith and love? Hence we derive\na confirmation of the foregoing exposition of the law, which traces and\nfinds in its precepts all the duties of piety and love. For they who\nattend merely to dry and barren elements, as though it taught them but\nhalf of the Divine will, are declared by the Apostle to have no knowledge\nof its end.\n\nLII. But because Christ and his Apostles, in reciting the substance of the\nlaw, sometimes omit the first table,(901) many persons are deceived in\nthis point, who wish to extend their expressions to both tables. In the\nGospel of Matthew, Christ calls judgment, mercy, and faith, \u201cthe weightier\nmatters of the law.\u201d By the word faith it is evident to me that he intends\ntruth or fidelity towards men. Some, however, in order to extend the\npassage to the whole law, take the word faith to mean religion towards\nGod. But for this there is no foundation; for Christ is treating of those\nworks by which man ought to prove himself to be righteous. If we attend to\nthis observation, we shall cease also to wonder, why, in another place, to\nthe inquiry of a young man, what those commandments are by the observance\nof which we enter into life, he only returns the following answer: \u201cThou\nshalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal,\nThou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother; and,\nThou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d(902) For obedience to the first\ntable consisted chiefly either in the disposition of the heart, or in\nceremonies. The disposition of the heart was not visible, and the\nceremonies were diligently performed by hypocrites; but the works of\ncharity are such as enable us to give a certain evidence of righteousness.\nBut the same occurs in the Prophets so frequently, that it must be\nfamiliar to the reader who is but tolerably conversant with them. For in\nalmost all cases when they exhort to repentance, they omit the first\ntable, and insist on faith, judgment, mercy, and equity. Nor do they by\nthis method neglect the fear of God, but require substantial proof of it\nfrom those marks. It is well known that when they treat of the observation\nof the law, they generally insist on the second table; because it is in it\nthat the love of righteousness and integrity is principally discovered. It\nis unnecessary to quote the passages, as every person will of himself\neasily remark what I have stated.\n\nLIII. Is it, then, it will be asked, of more importance towards the\nattainment of righteousness to live innocently with men, than piously\ntowards God? By no means. But because no man fulfils all the duties of\ncharity, unless he really fear God, we derive from those duties a proof of\nhis piety. Besides, the Lord, well knowing that he can receive no benefit\nfrom us, which he also declares by the Psalmist,(903) requires not our\nservices for himself, but employs us in good works towards our neighbour.\nIt is not without reason, then, that the Apostle makes all the perfection\nof the saints to consist in love;(904) which in another place he very\njustly styles \u201cthe fulfilling of the law;\u201d adding, that \u201che that loveth\nanother hath fulfilled the law.\u201d(905) Again: that \u201call the law is\nfulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself.\u201d(906) For he teaches nothing different from what is taught by\nChrist himself, when he says, \u201cAll things whatsoever ye would that men\nshould do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the\nprophets.\u201d(907) It is certain that in the law and the prophets, faith, and\nall that pertains to the legitimate worship of God, hold the principal\nplace, and that love occupies an inferior station; but our Lord intends\nthat the observance of justice and equity among men is only prescribed to\nus in the law, that our pious fear of him, if we really possess any, may\nbe proved by our actions.\n\nLIV. Here, then, we must rest, that our life will then be governed\naccording to the will of God, and the prescriptions of his law, when it is\nin all respects most beneficial to our brethren. But we do not find in the\nwhole law one syllable, that lays down any rule for a man respecting those\nthings which he should practise or omit for his carnal convenience. And\nsurely, since men are born in such a state, that they are entirely\ngoverned by an immoderate self\u2010love,\u2014a passion which, how great soever\ntheir departure from the truth, they always retain,\u2014there was no need of a\nlaw which would inflame that love, already of itself too violent. Whence\nit plainly appears, that the observance of the commandments consists not\nin the love of ourselves, but in the love of God and of our neighbour;\nthat his is the best and most holy life, who lives as little as possible\nto himself; and that no man leads a worse or more iniquitous life, than he\nwho lives exclusively to himself, and makes his own interest the sole\nobject of his thoughts and pursuits. Moreover, the Lord, in order to give\nus the best expression of the strength of that love which we ought to\nexercise towards our neighbours, has regulated it by the standard of our\nself\u2010love, because there was no stronger or more vehement affection. And\nthe force of the expression must be carefully examined; for he does not,\naccording to the foolish dreams of some sophists, concede the first place\nto self\u2010love, and assign the second to the love of our neighbour; but\nrather transfers to others that affection of love which we naturally\nrestrict to ourselves. Whence the Apostle asserts that \u201ccharity seeketh\nnot her own.\u201d(908) Nor is their argument, that every thing regulated by\nany standard is inferior to the standard by which it is regulated, worthy\nof the least attention. For God does not appoint our self\u2010love as the\nrule, to which our love to others should be subordinate; but whereas,\nthrough our natural depravity, our love used to terminate in ourselves, he\nshows that it ought now to be diffused abroad; that we may be ready to do\nany service to our neighbour with as much alacrity, ardour, and\nsolicitude, as to ourselves.\n\nLV. Now, since Christ has demonstrated, in the parable of the Samaritan,\nthat the word \u201cneighbour\u201d comprehends every man, even the greatest\nstranger, we have no reason to limit the commandment of love to our own\nrelations or friends. I do not deny, that the more closely any person is\nunited to us, the greater claim he has to the assistance of our kind\noffices. For the condition of humanity requires, that men should perform\nmore acts of kindness to each other, in proportion to the closeness of the\nbonds by which they are connected, whether of relationship, or\nacquaintance, or vicinity; and this without any offence to God, by whose\nprovidence we are constrained to it. But I assert, that the whole human\nrace, without any exception, should be comprehended in the same affection\nof love, and that in this respect there is no difference between the\nbarbarian and the Grecian, the worthy and unworthy, the friend and the\nfoe; for they are to be considered in God, and not in themselves, and\nwhenever we deviate from this view of the subject, it is no wonder if we\nfall into many errors. Wherefore, if we wish to adhere to the true law of\nlove, our eyes must chiefly be directed, not to man, the prospect of whom\nwould impress us with hatred more frequently than with love, but to God,\nwho commands that our love to him be diffused among all mankind; so that\nthis must always be a fundamental maxim with us, that whatever be the\ncharacter of a man, yet we ought to love him because we love God.\n\nLVI. Wherefore the schoolmen have discovered either their ignorance or\ntheir wickedness in a most pestilent manner, when, treating of the\nprecepts prohibiting the desire of revenge, and enjoining the love of our\nenemies, which were anciently delivered to all the Jews, and afterwards\nequally to all Christians, they have made them to be counsels which we are\nat liberty to obey or not to obey, and have confined the necessary\nobservance of them to the monks, who, on account of this very\ncircumstance, would be more righteous than plain Christians, because they\nvoluntarily bound themselves to observe these counsels. The reason which\nthey assign for not receiving them as laws, is, that they appear too\nburdensome and grievous, especially to Christians who are under the law of\ngrace. Do they presume in this manner to disannul the eternal law of God\nrespecting the love of our neighbour? Is such a distinction to be found in\nany page of the law? On the contrary, does it not abound with commandments\nmost strictly enjoining the love of our enemies? For what is the meaning\nof the injunction to feed our neighbour when he is hungry?(909) to direct\ninto the right way his oxen or his asses when they are going astray, and\nto help them when sinking under a burden?(910) Shall we do good to his\ncattle for his sake, and feel no benevolence to his person? What! is not\nthe word of the Lord eternal? \u201cVengeance is mine, I will repay:\u201d(911)\nwhich is expressed in another passage still more explicitly: \u201cThou shalt\nnot avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people.\u201d(912)\nLet them either obliterate these passages from the law, or acknowledge\nthat the Lord was a Legislator, and no longer falsely pretend that he was\nonly a counsellor.\n\nLVII. And what is the meaning of the following expressions, which they\nhave presumed to abuse by the absurdity of their comment? \u201cLove your\nenemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and\npray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may\nbe the children of your Father which is in heaven.\u201d(913) Here, who would\nnot argue with Chrysostom, that the allegation of such a necessary cause\nclearly proves these to be, not exhortations, but commandments? What have\nwe left us, after being expunged from the number of the children of God?\nBut according to them, the monks will be the only sons of the heavenly\nFather; they alone will venture to invoke God as their Father. What will\nnow become of the Church? Upon the same principle it will be confined to\nheathen and publicans. For Christ says, \u201cIf ye love them which love you,\nwhat reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?\u201d(914) Shall not\nwe be in a happy situation, if they leave us the title of Christians, but\ndeprive us of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven? The argument of\nAugustine is equally strong. When the Lord, says he, prohibits adultery,\nhe forbids you to violate the wife of your enemy no less than of your\nfriend: when he prohibits theft, he permits you not to steal from any one,\nwhether he be a friend or an enemy. Now, Paul reduces these two\nprohibitions of theft and adultery to the rule of love, and even teaches\nthat they are \u201cbriefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt\nlove thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d(915) Either, then, Paul must have been an\nerroneous expositor of the law, or it necessarily follows from this, that\nwe are commanded to love, not only our friends, but also our enemies.\nThose, therefore, who so licentiously shake off the yoke common to the\nchildren of God, evidently betray themselves to be the sons of Satan. It\nis doubtful whether they have discovered greater stupidity or impudence in\nthe publication of this dogma. For all the fathers decidedly pronounce\nthat these are mere precepts. That no doubt was entertained on the subject\nin the time of Gregory, appears from his positive assertions; for he\ntreats them as precepts, as though it had never been controverted. And how\nfoolishly do they argue! They would be a burden, say they, too grievous\nfor Christians; as though truly any thing could be conceived more\ndifficult, than to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, and\nwith all our strength. Compared with this law, every thing must be\naccounted easy, whether it be to love an enemy, or to banish from the mind\nall desire of revenge. To our imbecility, indeed, every thing is arduous\nand difficult, even the smallest point in the law. It is the Lord in whom\nwe find strength: let him give what he commands, and let him command what\nhe pleases. The being Christians under the law of grace consists not in\nunbounded license uncontrolled by any law, but in being ingrafted into\nChrist, by whose grace they are delivered from the curse of the law, and\nby whose Spirit they have the law inscribed on their hearts. This grace\nPaul has figuratively denominated a law, in allusion to the law of God, to\nwhich he was comparing and contrasting it. Their dispute concerning the\nword law is a dispute about nothing.\n\nLVIII. Of the same nature is what they have called venial sin\u2014a term which\nthey apply to secret impiety, which is a breach of the first table, and to\nthe direct transgression of the last commandment. For this is their\ndefinition, that \u201cit is evil desire without any deliberate assent, and\nwithout any long continuance in the heart.\u201d Now, I assert that evil desire\ncannot enter the heart, except through a deficiency of those things which\nthe law requires. We are forbidden to have any strange gods. When the\nmind, assaulted by mistrust, looks around to some other quarter; when it\nis stimulated by a sudden desire of transferring its happiness from God to\nsome other being; whence proceed these emotions, however transient, but\nfrom the existence of some vacant space in the soul to receive such\ntemptations? And not to protract this argument to greater length, we are\ncommanded to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all\nour soul: therefore, unless all the powers of our soul be intensely\nengaged in the love of God, we have already departed from the obedience\nrequired by the law; for that the dominion of God is not well established\nin our conscience, is evident, from the enemies that there rebel against\nhis government, and interrupt the execution of his commands. That the last\ncommandment properly belongs to this point, has been already demonstrated.\nHave we felt any evil desire in our heart? we are already guilty of\nconcupiscence, and are become at once transgressors of the law; because\nthe Lord forbids us, not only to plan and attempt any thing that would\nprove detrimental to another, but even to be stimulated and agitated with\nconcupiscence. Now, the curse of God always rests on the transgression of\nthe law. We have no reason, therefore, to exempt even the most trivial\nemotions of concupiscence from the sentence of death. \u201cIn determining the\nnature of different sins,\u201d says Augustine, \u201clet us not use deceitful\nbalances, to weigh what we please and how we please, according to our own\nhumour, saying, This is heavy,\u2014This is light; but let us borrow the Divine\nbalance from the Holy Scriptures, as from the treasury of the Lord, and\ntherein weigh what is heavy; or rather let us weigh nothing ourselves, but\nacknowledge the weights already determined by the Lord.\u201d And what says the\nScripture? The assertion of Paul, that \u201cthe wages of sin is death,\u201d(916)\nsufficiently demonstrates this groundless distinction to have been unknown\nto him. As we have already too strong a propensity to hypocrisy, this\nopiate ought by no means to have been added, to lull our consciences into\ngreater insensibility.\n\nLIX. I wish these persons would consider the meaning of this declaration\nof Christ: \u201cWhosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and\nshall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of\nheaven.\u201d(917) Are not they of this number, who thus presume to extenuate\nthe transgression of the law, as though it were not worthy of death? But\nthey ought to consider, not merely what is commanded, but who it is that\ngives the commands; because the smallest transgression of the law, which\nhe has given, is a derogation from his authority. Is the violation of the\nDivine majesty in any case a trivial thing in their estimation? Lastly, if\nGod has declared his will in the law, whatever is contrary to the law\ndispleases him. Will they pretend that the wrath of God is so debilitated\nand disarmed, that the punishment of death cannot immediately follow? He\nhas unequivocally declared, if they could induce themselves to listen to\nhis voice, rather than obscure the plain truth with their frivolous\nsubtleties, \u201cThe soul that sinneth, it shall die;\u201d(918) and, which I have\nbefore cited, \u201cThe wages of sin is death.\u201d(919) They acknowledge it to be\nsin, because it is impossible to deny it; yet they contend that it is not\n_mortal_ sin. But, as they have hitherto too much resigned themselves to\ninfatuation, they should at length learn to return to the exercise of\ntheir reason. If they persevere in their dreams, we will take our leave of\nthem. Let the children of God know that all sin is _mortal_; because it is\na rebellion against the will of God, which necessarily provokes his wrath;\nbecause it is a transgression of the law, against which the Divine\njudgment is universally denounced; and that the offences of the saints are\n_venial_, not of their own nature, but because they obtain pardon through\nthe mercy of God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX. Christ, Though Known To The Jews Under The Law, Yet Clearly\nRevealed Only In The Gospel.\n\n\nAs it was not without reason, or without effect, that God was pleased, in\nancient times, to manifest himself as a Father by means of expiations and\nsacrifices, and that he consecrated to himself a chosen people, there is\nno doubt that he was known, even then, in the same image in which he now\nappears to us with meridian splendour. Therefore Malachi, after having\nenjoined the Jews to attend to the law of Moses, and to persevere in the\nobservance of it, (because after his death there was to be an interruption\nof the prophetical office,) immediately announces, that \u201cthe Sun of\nrighteousness shall arise.\u201d(920) In this language he suggests, that the\nlaw tended to excite in the pious an expectation of the Messiah that was\nto come, and that at his advent there was reason to hope for a much\ngreater degree of light. For this reason Peter says that \u201cthe Prophets\nhave inquired and searched diligently concerning the salvation,\u201d which is\nnow manifested in the gospel; and that \u201cit was revealed to them, that not\nunto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things which are now\nreported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you.\u201d(921)\nNot that their instructions were useless to the ancient people, or\nunprofitable to themselves, but because they did not enjoy the treasure,\nwhich God through their hands has transmitted to us. For in the present\nday, the grace, which was the subject of their testimony, is familiarly\nexhibited before our eyes; and whereas they had but a small taste, we have\noffered to us a more copious fruition of it. Therefore Christ, who asserts\nthat \u201cMoses wrote of him,\u201d(922) nevertheless extols that measure of grace\nin which we excel the Jews. Addressing his disciples, he says, \u201cBlessed\nare your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.\u201d(923) \u201cFor I\ntell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things\nwhich ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye\nhear, and have not heard them.\u201d(924) This is no small recommendation of\nthe evangelical revelation, that God has preferred us to those holy\nfathers who were eminent for singular piety. To this declaration that\nother passage is not at all repugnant, where Christ says, \u201cAbraham saw my\nday, and was glad.\u201d(925) For though his prospect of a thing so very remote\nwas attended with much obscurity, yet there was nothing wanting to the\ncertainty of a well founded hope; and hence that joy which accompanied the\nholy patriarch even to his death. Neither does this assertion of John the\nBaptist, \u201cNo man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which\nis in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,\u201d(926) exclude the\npious, who had died before his time, from a participation of the\nunderstanding and light which shine in the person of Christ; but,\ncomparing their condition with ours, it teaches us that we have a clear\nmanifestation of those mysteries, of which they had only an obscure\nprospect through the medium of shadows; as the author of the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews more copiously and excellently shows, that \u201cGod, who at sundry\ntimes, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the\nprophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.\u201d(927)\nTherefore, though the only begotten Son, who is now to us \u201cthe brightness\nof the glory, and the express image of the person,\u201d(928) of God the\nFather, was formerly known to the Jews, as we have elsewhere shown by a\nquotation from Paul, that he was the leader of their ancient deliverance\nfrom Egypt; yet this also is a truth, which is asserted by the same Paul\nin another place, that \u201cGod, who commanded the light to shine out of\ndarkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of\nthe glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.\u201d(929) For when he appeared\nin this his image, he made himself visible, as it were, in comparison with\nthe obscure and shadowy representation of him which had been given before.\nThis renders the ingratitude and obstinacy of those, who shut their eyes\namid this meridian blaze, so much the more vile and detestable. And\ntherefore Paul says that Satan, \u201cthe god of this world, hath blinded their\nminds, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto\nthem.\u201d(930)\n\nII. Now, I understand the gospel to be a clear manifestation of the\nmystery of Christ. I grant indeed, since Paul styles the gospel _the\ndoctrine of faith_,(931) that whatever promises we find in the law\nconcerning the gracious remission of sins, by which God reconciles men to\nhimself, are accounted parts of it. For he opposes faith to those terrors\nwhich torment and harass the conscience, if salvation is to be sought by\nworks. Whence it follows, that taking the word _gospel_ in a large sense,\nit comprehends all those testimonies, which God formerly gave to the\nfathers, of his mercy and paternal favour; but it is more eminently\napplicable to the promulgation of the grace exhibited in Christ. This\nacceptation is not only sanctioned by common use, but supported by the\nauthority of Christ and the Apostles. Whence it is properly said of him,\nthat he \u201cpreached the gospel of the kingdom.\u201d(932) And Mark introduces\nhimself with this preface: \u201cThe beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.\u201d\nBut it is needless to collect more passages to prove a thing sufficiently\nknown. Christ, then, by his advent, \u201chath brought life and immortality to\nlight through the gospel.\u201d(933) By these expressions Paul means, not that\nthe fathers were immerged in the shades of death, till the Son of God\nbecame incarnate; but, claiming for the gospel this honourable\nprerogative, he teaches that it is a new and unusual kind of legation, in\nwhich God has performed those things that he had promised, that the truth\nof the promises might appear in the person of his Son. For though the\nfaithful have always experienced the truth of the assertion of Paul, that\n\u201call the promises of God in him are Yea, and in him Amen,\u201d(934) because\nthey have been sealed in their hearts, yet, since he has completed in his\nbody all the parts of our salvation, the lively exhibition of those things\nhas justly obtained new and singular praise. Hence this declaration of\nChrist: \u201cHereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God\nascending and descending upon the Son of man.\u201d(935) For though he seems to\nallude to the ladder which the patriarch Jacob saw in a vision, yet he\ndisplays the superior excellence of his advent by this character\u2014that he\nhas opened the gate of heaven to give us free admittance into it.\n\nIII. Nevertheless, we must beware of the diabolical imagination of\nServetus, who, while he designs to extol the magnitude of the grace of\nChrist, or at least professes such a design, totally abolishes all the\npromises, as though they were terminated together with the law. He\npretends, that by faith in the gospel we receive the completion of all the\npromises; as though there were no distinction between us and Christ. I\nhave just observed, that Christ left nothing incomplete of all that was\nessential to our salvation; but it is not a fair inference, that we\nalready enjoy the benefits procured by him; for this would contradict the\ndeclaration of Paul, that \u201chope is laid up for us.\u201d(936) I grant, indeed,\nthat when we believe in Christ, we at the same time pass from death to\nlife; but we should also remember the observation of John, that though \u201cwe\nare now the sons of God, it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we\nknow that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see\nhim as he is.\u201d(937) Though Christ, therefore, offers us in the gospel a\npresent plenitude of spiritual blessings, yet the fruition of them is\nconcealed under the custody of hope, till we are divested of our\ncorruptible body, and transfigured into the glory of him who has gone\nbefore us. In the mean time, the Holy Spirit commands us to rely on the\npromises; and his authority we ought to consider sufficient to silence all\nthe clamours of Servetus. For according to the testimony of Paul,\n\u201cgodliness hath promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to\ncome;\u201d(938) and therefore he boasts of being an Apostle of Christ;\n\u201caccording to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus.\u201d(939) In\nanother place he apprizes us that we have the same promises which were\ngiven to the saints in former times.(940) Finally, he represents it as the\nsummit of felicity, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of\npromise.(941) Nor, indeed, have we otherwise any enjoyment of Christ, any\nfurther than as we embrace him invested with his promises. Hence it is,\nthat he dwells in our hearts, and yet we live like pilgrims at a distance\nfrom him; because \u201cwe walk by faith, and not by sight.\u201d Nor is there any\ncontrariety in these two positions, that we possess in Christ all that\nbelongs to the perfection of the life of heaven, and yet that faith is a\nvision of invisible blessings. Only there is a difference to be observed\nin the nature or quality of the promises; because the gospel affords a\nclear discovery of that which the law has represented in shadows and\ntypes.\n\nIV. This likewise evinces the error of those who never make any other\ncomparison between the Law and the Gospel, than between the merit of works\nand the gratuitous imputation of righteousness. This antithesis, I grant,\nis by no means to be rejected; because Paul by the word _law_ frequently\nintends the rule of a righteous life, in which God requires of us what we\nowe to him, affording us no hope of life, unless we fulfil every part of\nit, and, on the contrary, annexing a curse if we are guilty of the\nsmallest transgression. This is the sense in which he uses it in those\npassages, where he argues that we are accepted by God through grace, and\nare accounted righteous through his pardon of our sins, because the\nobservance of the law, to which the reward is promised, is not to be found\nin any man. Paul, therefore, justly represents the righteousness of the\nlaw and that of the gospel as opposed to each other. But the gospel has\nnot succeeded the whole law, so as to introduce a different way of\nsalvation; but rather to confirm and ratify the promises of the law, and\nto connect the body with the shadows. For when Christ says that \u201cthe law\nand the prophets were until John,\u201d he does not abandon the fathers to the\ncurse which the slaves of the law cannot escape; he rather implies that\nthey were only initiated in the rudiments of religion, so that they\nremained far below the sublimity of the evangelical doctrine. Wherefore,\nwhen Paul calls the gospel \u201cthe power of God unto salvation to every one\nthat believeth,\u201d he afterwards adds that it is \u201cwitnessed by the law and\nthe prophets.\u201d(942) But at the end of the same Epistle, although he\nasserts that the preaching of Jesus Christ is \u201cthe revelation of the\nmystery which was kept secret since the world began,\u201d he qualifies this\nsentiment with the following explication\u2014that it \u201cis now made manifest,\nand by the Scriptures of the prophets made known to all nations.\u201d(943)\nHence we conclude, that when mention is made of the whole law, the gospel\ndiffers from it only with respect to a clear manifestation; but on account\nof the inestimable plenitude of grace, which has been displayed to us in\nChrist, the celestial kingdom of God is justly said to have been erected\nin the earth at his advent.\n\nV. Now, John was placed between the Law and the Gospel, holding an\nintermediate office connected with both. For though, in calling Christ\n\u201cthe Lamb of God\u201d and \u201cthe victim for the expiation of sins,\u201d(944) he\npreached the substance of the gospel; yet, because he did not clearly\nexpress that incomparable power and glory which afterwards appeared in his\nresurrection, Christ affirms that he is not equal to the Apostles. This is\nhis meaning in the following words: \u201cAmong them that are born of women,\nthere hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding, he\nthat is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.\u201d(945) For he is\nnot there commending the persons of men, but after having preferred John\nto all the prophets, he allots the highest degree of honour to the\npreaching of the gospel, which we have elsewhere seen is signified by \u201cthe\nkingdom of heaven.\u201d When John himself said that he was only a\n\u201cvoice,\u201d(946) as though he were inferior to the prophets, this declaration\nproceeded not from a pretended humility; he meant to signify that he was\nnot intrusted with a proper embassy, but acted merely in the capacity of a\nherald, according to the prediction of Malachi: \u201cBehold, I will send you\nElijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the\nLord.\u201d(947) Nor indeed, through the whole course of his ministry, did he\naim at any thing but procuring disciples for Christ, which he also proves\nfrom Isaiah to have been the commission given him by God. In this sense he\nwas called by Christ \u201ca burning and a shining light,\u201d(948) because the\nfull day had not yet arrived. Yet this is no reason why he should not be\nnumbered among the preachers of the gospel, as he used the same baptism\nwhich was afterwards delivered to the apostles. But it was not till after\nChrist was received into the celestial glory, that the more free and rapid\nprogress of the apostles completed what John had begun.\n\n\n\n\nChapter X. The Similarity Of The Old And New Testaments.\n\n\nFrom the preceding observations it may now be evident, that all those\npersons, from the beginning of the world, whom God has adopted into the\nsociety of his people, have been federally connected with him by the same\nlaw and the same doctrine which are in force among us: but because it is\nof no small importance that this point be established, I shall show, by\nway of appendix, since the fathers were partakers with us of the same\ninheritance, and hoped for the same salvation through the grace of our\ncommon Mediator, how far their condition in this connection was different\nfrom ours. For though the testimonies we have collected from the law and\nthe prophets in proof of this, render it sufficiently evident that the\npeople of God have never had any other rule of religion and piety, yet\nbecause some writers have raised many disputes concerning the difference\nof the Old and New Testaments, which may occasion doubts in the mind of an\nundiscerning reader, we shall assign a particular chapter for the better\nand more accurate discussion of this subject. Moreover, what would\notherwise have been very useful, has now been rendered necessary for us by\nServetus and some madmen of the sect of the Anabaptists, who entertain no\nother ideas of the Israelitish nation, than of a herd of swine, whom they\npretend to have been pampered by the Lord in this world, without the least\nhope of a future immortality in heaven. To defend the pious mind,\ntherefore, from this pestilent error, and at the same time to remove all\ndifficulties which may arise from the mention of a diversity between the\nOld and New Testaments, let us, as we proceed, examine what similarity\nthere is between them, and what difference; what covenant the Lord made\nwith the Israelites, in ancient times, before the advent of Christ, and\nwhat he has entered into with us since his manifestation in the flesh.\n\nII. And, indeed, both these topics may be despatched in one word. The\ncovenant of all the fathers is so far from differing substantially from\nours, that it is the very same; it only varies in the administration. But\nas such extreme brevity would not convey to any man a clear understanding\nof the subject, it is necessary, if we would do any good, to proceed to a\nmore diffuse explication of it. But in showing their similarity, or rather\nunity, it will be needless to recapitulate all the particulars which have\nalready been mentioned, and unseasonable to introduce those things which\nremain to be discussed in some other place. We must here insist chiefly on\nthree principal points. We have to maintain, First, that carnal opulence\nand felicity were not proposed to the Jews as the mark towards which they\nshould ultimately aspire, but that they were adopted to the hope of\nimmortality, and that the truth of this adoption was certified to them by\noracles, by the law, and by the prophets. Secondly, that the covenant, by\nwhich they were united to the Lord, was founded, not on any merits of\ntheirs, but on the mere mercy of God who called them. Thirdly, that they\nboth possessed and knew Christ as the Mediator, by whom they were united\nto God, and became partakers of his promises. The second of these points,\nas perhaps it is not yet sufficiently known, shall be demonstrated at\nlarge in its proper place. For we shall prove by numerous and explicit\ntestimonies of the prophets, that whatever blessing the Lord ever gave or\npromised to his people, proceeded from his indulgent goodness. The third\npoint has been clearly demonstrated in several places. And we have not\nwholly neglected the first.\n\nIII. In discussing the first point, therefore, because it principally\nbelongs to the present argument, and is the grand subject of their\ncontroversy against us, we will use the more diligent application; yet in\nsuch a manner, that if any thing be wanting to the explication of the\nothers, it may be supplied as we proceed, or added afterwards in a\nsuitable place. Indeed, the apostle removes every doubt respecting all\nthese points, when he says, that God the Father \u201cpromised afore by his\nprophets in the holy Scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son,\u201d(949)\nwhich he promulgated in the appointed time: and again, that the\nrighteousness of faith, which is revealed in the gospel, is \u201cwitnessed by\nthe law and the prophets.\u201d(950) For the gospel does not detain men in the\njoy of the present life, but elevates them to the hope of immortality;\ndoes not fasten them to terrestrial delights, but announcing to them a\nhope reserved in heaven, does as it were transport them thither. For this\nis the description which he gives in another place: \u201cIn whom also after\nthat ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which\nis the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased\npossession.\u201d(951) Again: \u201cWe heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of\nthe love which ye have to all the saints, for the hope which is laid up\nfor you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the\ngospel.\u201d(952) Again: \u201cHe called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the\nglory of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d(953) Whence it is called \u201cthe word of\nsalvation,\u201d and \u201cthe power of God to the salvation of believers,\u201d and \u201cthe\nkingdom of heaven.\u201d Now, if the doctrine of the gospel be spiritual, and\nopen a way to the possession of an immortal life, let us not suppose that\nthey, to whom it was promised and announced, were totally negligent and\ncareless of their souls, and stupefied in the pursuit of corporeal\npleasures. Nor let any one here cavil, that the promises which are\nrecorded in the law and the prophets, respecting the gospel, were not\ndesigned for the Jews. For just after having spoken of the gospel being\npromised in the law, he adds, \u201cthat what things soever the law saith, it\nsaith to them who are under the law.\u201d(954) This was in another argument, I\ngrant; but when he said that whatever the law inculcates truly belonged to\nthe Jews, he was not so forgetful as not to remember what he had affirmed,\na few verses before, concerning the gospel promised in the law. By\ndeclaring that the Old Testament contained evangelical promises,\ntherefore, the apostle most clearly demonstrates that it principally\nrelated to a future life.\n\nIV. For the same reason it follows, that it was founded on the free mercy\nof God, and confirmed by the mediation of Christ. For even the preaching\nof the gospel only announces, that sinners are justified by the paternal\ngoodness of God, independently of any merit of their own; and the whole\nsubstance of it terminates in Christ. Who, then, dares to represent the\nJews as destitute of Christ,\u2014them with whom we are informed the\nevangelical covenant was made, of which Christ is the sole foundation? Who\ndares to represent them as strangers to the benefit of a free salvation,\nto whom we are informed the doctrine of the righteousness of faith was\ncommunicated? But not to be prolix in disputing on a clear point, we have\na remarkable expression of the Lord: \u201cAbraham rejoiced to see my day; and\nhe saw it, and was glad.\u201d(955) And what Christ there declares concerning\nAbraham, the apostle shows to have been universal among the faithful, when\nhe says that Christ remains \u201cthe same yesterday, and to\u2010day, and for\never.\u201d(956) For he there speaks, not only of the eternal Divinity of\nChrist, but of his power, which has been perpetually manifested to the\nfaithful. Wherefore both the blessed Virgin and Zachariah declare, in\ntheir songs, that the salvation revealed in Christ is a performance of the\npromises which the Lord had made to Abraham and the patriarchs.(957) If\nthe Lord, in the manifestation of Christ, faithfully performed his ancient\noath, it cannot be denied that the end of the Old Testament was always in\nChrist and eternal life.\n\nV. Moreover the apostle makes the Israelites equal to us, not only in the\ngrace of the covenant, but also in the signification of the sacraments.\nFor when he means to adduce examples of the punishments with which the\nScripture states them to have been formerly chastised, in order to deter\nthe Corinthians from running into similar crimes, he begins by premising,\nthat we have no reason to arrogate any pre\u00ebminence to ourselves, which can\ndeliver us from the Divine vengeance inflicted on them; since the Lord not\nonly favoured them with the same benefits, but illustrated his grace among\nthem by the same symbols;(958) as though he had said, If ye confide in\nbeing beyond the reach of danger, because both baptism by which you have\nbeen sealed, and the supper which you daily receive, have excellent\npromises, while at the same time you despise the Divine goodness, and live\nlicentious lives,\u2014know ye, that the Jews also were not destitute of such\nsymbols, though the Lord inflicted on them his severest judgments. They\nwere baptized in their passage through the sea, and in the cloud by which\nthey were protected from the fervour of the sun. Our opponents maintain\nthat passage to have been a carnal baptism, corresponding in some degree\nto our spiritual one. But if that were admitted, the apostle\u2019s argument\nwould not proceed; for his design here is to prevent Christians from\nsupposing that they excel the Jews in the privilege of baptism. Nor is\nwhat immediately follows, that they \u201cdid all eat the same spiritual meat,\nand did all drink the same spiritual drink,\u201d which he interprets of\nChrist, liable to this cavil.\n\nVI. To invalidate this declaration of Paul, they object the assertion of\nChrist, \u201cYour fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. If\nany man eat of this bread, (that is, my flesh,) he shall live for\never.\u201d(959) But the two passages are reconciled without any difficulty.\nThe Lord, because he was addressing auditors who only sought to be\nsatisfied with corporeal sustenance, but were unconcerned about food for\nthe soul, accommodates his discourse in some measure to their capacity,\nand institutes a comparison between manna and his own body, particularly\nto strike their senses. They demand that in order to acquire authority to\nhimself, he should prove his power by some miracle, such as Moses\nperformed in the desert, when he obtained manna from heaven. In the manna,\nhowever, they had no idea of any thing but a remedy for corporeal hunger,\nwith which the people were then afflicted. They did not penetrate to that\nsublimer mystery of which Paul treats. Christ, therefore, to demonstrate\nthe superiority of the blessing they ought to expect from him, to that\nwhich they said their fathers had received from Moses, makes this\ncomparison: If it be in your opinion a great and memorable miracle, that\nthe Lord, to prevent his people from perishing in the wilderness, supplied\nthem, by means of Moses, with heavenly food, which served them as a\ntemporary sustenance,\u2014hence conclude how much more excellent that food\nmust be, which communicates immortality. We see, then, why the Lord\nomitted the principal thing designed by the manna, and only remarked the\nlowest advantage that resulted from it. It was because the Jews, as if\nwith an intention of reproaching him, contrasted him with Moses, who had\nsupplied the necessities of the people with manna. He replies, that he is\nthe dispenser of a far superior favour, in comparison with which the\ncorporeal sustenance of the people, the sole object of their great\nadmiration, deserves to be considered as nothing. Knowing that the Lord,\nwhen he rained manna from heaven, not only poured it down for the support\nof their bodies, but likewise dispersed it as a spiritual mystery, to\ntypify that spiritual vivification which is experienced in Christ, Paul\ndoes not neglect that view of the subject which is most deserving of\nconsideration. Wherefore it is certainly and clearly proved, that the same\npromises of an eternal and heavenly life, with which the Lord now favours\nus, were not only communicated to the Jews, but even sealed and confirmed\nby sacraments truly spiritual. This subject is argued at length by\nAugustine against Faustus the Manich\u00e6an.\n\nVII. But if the reader would prefer a recital of testimonies from the law\nand the prophets, to show him that the spiritual covenant was common also\nto the fathers, as we have heard from Christ and his apostles,\u2014I will\nattend to this wish, and that with the greater readiness, because our\nadversaries will thereby be more decisively confuted, and will have no\npretence for any future cavil. I will begin with that demonstration,\nwhich, though I know the Anabaptists will superciliously deem it futile\nand almost ridiculous, yet will have considerable weight with persons of\ndocility and good understanding. And I take it for granted, that there is\nsuch a vital efficacy in the Divine word as to quicken the souls of all\nthose whom God favours with a participation of it. For the assertion of\nPeter has ever been true, that it is \u201can incorruptible seed, which abideth\nfor ever;\u201d(960) as he also concludes from the words of Isaiah.(961) Now,\nwhen God anciently united the Jews with himself in this sacred bond, there\nis no doubt that he separated them to the hope of eternal life. For when I\nsay, that they embraced the word which was to connect them more closely\nwith God, I advert not to that general species of communication with him,\nwhich is diffused through heaven and earth, and all the creatures in the\nuniverse, which although it animates all things according to their\nrespective natures, yet does not deliver from the necessity of corruption.\nI refer to that particular species of communication, by which the minds of\nthe pious are enlightened into the knowledge of God, and in some measure\nunited to him. Since Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs,\nwere attached to God by such an illumination of his word, I maintain,\nthere can be no doubt that they had an entrance into his immortal kingdom.\nFor it was a real participation of God, which cannot be separated from the\nblessing of eternal life.\n\nVIII. If the subject still appear involved in any obscurity, let us\nproceed to the very form of the covenant; which will not only satisfy\nsober minds, but will abundantly prove the ignorance of those who\nendeavour to oppose it. For the Lord has always made this covenant with\nhis servants: \u201cI will be your God, and ye shall be my people.\u201d(962) These\nexpressions, according to the common explanation of the prophets,\ncomprehend life, and salvation, and consummate felicity. For it is not\nwithout reason that David frequently pronounces, how \u201cblessed is the\nnation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his\nown inheritance;\u201d(963) and that not on account of any earthly felicity,\nbut because he delivers from death, perpetually preserves, and attends\nwith everlasting mercy, those whom he has taken for his people. As it is\nexpressed in the other prophets, \u201cArt thou not from everlasting, O Lord my\nGod, mine Holy One? we shall not die.\u201d(964) \u201cThe Lord is our Lawgiver, the\nLord is our King; he will save us.\u201d(965) \u201cHappy art thou, O Israel: who is\nlike unto thee, O people saved by the Lord?\u201d(966) But not to labour much\non a point which does not require it, we are frequently reminded, in\nreading the prophets, that we shall have a plenitude of all blessings, and\neven a certainty of salvation, provided the Lord be our God. And that on\ngood ground; for if his face, as soon as it has begun to shine, be a\npresent pledge of salvation, will God manifest himself to any man without\nopening the treasures of salvation to him? For God is our God, on the\nexpress condition of his \u201cwalking in the midst of us,\u201d as he declared by\nMoses.(967) But this presence of his cannot be obtained without the\npossession of life. And though nothing further had been expressed, they\nhad a promise of spiritual life sufficiently clear in these words: \u201cI am\nthe Lord your God.\u201d(968) For he announced that he would be a God, not only\nto their bodies, but chiefly to their souls; for the soul, unless united\nto God by righteousness, remains alienated from him at death. But let that\nunion take place, and it will be attended with eternal salvation.\n\nIX. Moreover, he not only declared himself to be their God, but promised\nto continue so for ever; in order that their hope, not contented with\npresent blessings, might be extended to eternity. And that the use of the\nfuture tense conveyed this idea to them, appears from many expressions,\nwhere the faithful console themselves not only amidst present evils, but\nfor futurity, that God will never desert them. But in regard to the second\npart of the promise, he still more plainly encouraged them concerning the\nextension of the Divine blessing to them beyond the limits of the present\nlife: \u201cI will be a God to thy seed after thee.\u201d(969) For if he intended to\ndeclare his benevolence to them after they were dead, by blessing their\nposterity, much more would he not fail of manifesting his favour towards\nthemselves. For God is not like men, who transfer their love to the\nchildren of their friends, because death takes away their opportunity of\nperforming kind offices to those who were objects of their regard. But\nGod, whose beneficence is not interrupted by death, deprives not the dead\nof the blessings of his mercy, which for their sakes he diffuses through a\nthousand generations. The design of the Lord, therefore, was to show them,\nby a clear proof, the magnitude and abundance of his goodness which they\nshould experience after death, when he described its exuberance as\nreaching to all their posterity.(970) Now, the Lord sealed the truth, and,\nas it were, exhibited the completion of this promise, when he called\nhimself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, long after they were\ndead.(971) For what is implied in it? Would it not have been a ridiculous\nappellation, if they had perished? It would have been just as if he had\nsaid, I am the God of those who have no existence. Wherefore, the\nevangelists relate, that with this single argument the Sadducees were so\nembarrassed by Christ,(972) as to be unable to deny that Moses had given a\ntestimony in favour of the resurrection of the dead; for they had learned\nfrom Moses himself, that \u201call his saints are in his hand.\u201d(973) Whence it\nwas easy to infer, that death had not annihilated those whom he, who is\nthe arbiter of life and death, had received into his guardianship and\nprotection.\n\nX. Now, to come to the principal point on which this controversy turns,\nlet us examine, whether the faithful themselves were not so instructed by\nthe Lord, as to be sensible that they had a better life in another world,\nand to meditate on that to the neglect of the present. In the first place,\nthe course of life which was divinely enjoined them was a perpetual\nexercise, by which they were reminded that they were the most miserable of\nall mankind, if they had no happiness but in the present life. Adam,\nrendered most unhappy by the mere remembrance of his lost felicity, finds\ngreat difficulty in supplying his wants by anxious toils.(974) Nor does\nthe Divine malediction confine itself to his manual labours; he\nexperiences the bitterest sorrow from that which was his only remaining\nconsolation. Of his two sons, he is deprived of one by the parricidal\nhands of his brother; the survivor is deservedly the object of his\ndetestation and abhorrence.(975) Abel, cruelly assassinated in the flower\nof his age, exhibits an example of human calamity. Noah, while the whole\nworld securely abandons itself to sensual delights, consumes a valuable\npart of his life with excessive fatigue in building the ark.(976) His\nescape from death was attended with greater distress than if he had died a\nhundred times. For besides that the ark was, as it were, a sepulchre to\nhim for ten months,(977) nothing could be more disagreeable than to be\ndetained for so long a period almost immersed in the ordure of animals.\nAfter having escaped from such great difficulties, he meets with a fresh\noccasion of grief. He sees himself ridiculed by his own son, and is\nconstrained to pronounce a curse with his own mouth upon him, whom by the\ngreat goodness of God he had received safe from the deluge.(978)\n\nXI. Abraham is one who ought to be deemed equal to a host, if we consider\nhis faith, which is proposed to us as the best standard of believing, so\nthat we must be numbered in his family, in order to be the children of\nGod. Now, what would be more absurd, than that Abraham should be the\nfather of all the faithful, and not possess even the lowest place among\nthem? But he cannot be excluded from the number, nor even from the most\nhonourable station, without the destruction of the whole Church. Now, with\nrespect to the circumstances of his life;\u2014when he is first called, he is\ntorn by the Divine command from his country, his parents, and his friends,\nthe enjoyment of whom is supposed to give life its principal relish; as\nthough God positively intended to deprive him of all the pleasures of\nlife.(979) As soon as he has entered the land in which he is commanded to\nreside, he is driven from it by a famine. He removes, in search of relief,\nto a place where, for the preservation of his own safety, he finds it\nnecessary to disown his wife, which would probably be more afflictive to\nhim than many deaths.(980) After having returned to the country of his\nresidence, he is again expelled from it by famine. What kind of felicity\nis it to dwell in such a country, where he must so frequently experience\nhunger, and even perish for want of sustenance, unless he leaves it? In\nthe country of Abimelech, he is again driven to the same necessity of\npurchasing his own personal safety with the loss of his wife.(981) While\nhe wanders hither and thither for many years in an unsettled state, he is\ncompelled, by the continual quarrels of his servants, to send away his\nnephew, whom he regarded as a son.(982) There is no doubt that he bore\nthis separation just as he would the amputation of one of his limbs. Soon\nafter he is informed that enemies have carried him away captive.(983)\nWhithersoever he directs his course, he finds himself surrounded by savage\nbarbarians, who will not even permit him to drink the water of wells which\nwith immense labour he has himself digged. For he could not have bought\nthe use of them from the king of Gerar, if it had not been previously\nprohibited.(984) When he arrives to old age, beyond the time of having\nchildren, he experiences the most disagreeable and painful circumstance\nwith which that age is attended.(985) He sees himself destitute of\nposterity, till, beyond all expectation, he begets Ishmael; whose birth he\npurchases at a dear rate, while he is wearied with the reproaches of\nSarah, just as if he encouraged the contumacy of his maid\u2010servant, and so\nwere himself the cause of the domestic disturbance.(986) At length Isaac\nis born; but his birth is attended with this condition, that Ishmael the\nfirst\u2010born must be banished from the family, and abandoned like an\nenemy.(987) When Isaac is left alone to solace the good man in his\ndeclining years, he is soon after commanded to sacrifice him.(988) What\ncan the human mind imagine more calamitous, than for a father to become\nthe executioner of his own son? If he had been taken away by sickness,\nevery one would have thought the aged parent unhappy in the extreme, as\nhaving had a son given him in mockery, at the loss of whom, his former\ngrief on account of his being destitute of children would certainly be\nredoubled. If he had been massacred by some stranger, the calamity would\nhave been greatly increased by the horrible nature of his end; but to be\nslain by his father\u2019s own hand exceeds all the other instances of\ndistress. In short, through the whole course of his life, Abraham was so\ndriven about and afflicted, that if any one wished to give an example of a\nlife full of calamity, he could not find one more suitable. Nor let it be\nobjected, that he was not entirely miserable, because he had at length a\nprosperous deliverance from such numerous and extreme dangers. For we\ncannot pronounce his to be a happy life, who for a long period struggles\nthrough an infinity of difficulties; but his, who is exempted from\nafflictions, and favoured with the peaceful enjoyment of present\nblessings.\n\nXII. Isaac, though afflicted with fewer calamities, yet scarcely ever\nenjoys the smallest taste of pleasure. He also experiences those vexations\nwhich permit not a man to be happy in the world. Famine drives him from\nthe land of Canaan; his wife is torn from his bosom; his neighbours\nfrequently harass him, and take every method of distressing him, so that\nhe also is constrained to contend with them about water.(989) In his own\nfamily he suffers much uneasiness from Esau\u2019s wives;(990) he is distressed\nby the discord of his sons, and unable to remedy that great evil, but by\nthe exile of him to whom he had given the blessing.(991) With respect to\nJacob, he is an eminent example of nothing but extreme infelicity. He\npasses his childhood at home, amidst the menaces and terrors of his elder\nbrother, to which he is at length constrained to give way.(992) A fugitive\nfrom his parents and his native soil, in addition to the bitterness of\nexile, he is treated with unkindness by his uncle Laban. It is not\nsufficient for him to endure a most hard and severe servitude of seven\nyears, but he is fraudulently deceived in a wife.(993) For the sake of\nanother wife he must enter on a new servitude,(994) in which, as he\nhimself complains, he is scorched all the day by the fervid rays of the\nsun, and through the wakeful night benumbed by the icy cold.(995) During\ntwenty years, which he spends in such extreme hardships, he is daily\nafflicted with fresh injuries from his father\u2010in\u2010law. Nor does he enjoy\ntranquillity in his own family, which he sees distracted and almost torn\nasunder by the animosities, contentions, and rivalship of his wives.(996)\nWhen he is commanded to return to his own country, he is obliged to depart\nin a manner resembling an ignominious flight. Nor even then can he escape\nthe iniquity of his father\u2010in\u2010law, but is harassed with his reproaches and\ninsults in the midst of his journey.(997) Immediately after, he falls into\na much greater difficulty. For as he advances towards his brother, he has\ndeath before his eyes in as many forms as a cruel and inveterate enemy can\npossibly contrive. He is exceedingly tormented and distracted with\ndreadful terrors, while he is expecting the approach of his brother; when\nhe sees him, he falls at his feet like a person half dead, till he finds\nhim more reconciled than he could have ventured to hope.(998) Moreover, on\nhis first entrance into the land, he is deprived of Rachel, his dearly\nbeloved wife.(999) Afterwards he hears that the son whom he had by her,\nand whom, therefore, he loved above the rest, is torn asunder by wild\nbeasts. The severity of his grief on account of his death is expressed by\nhimself, when, after many days of mourning, he obstinately refuses all\nconsolation, saying, \u201cI will go down into the grave unto my son\nmourning.\u201d(1000) In the mean time, the rape and violation of his daughter,\nand the rashness of his sons in revenging it, which not only made him an\nobject of abhorrence to all the inhabitants of the country, but put him in\nimmediate danger of being massacred; what abundant sources were these of\nanxiety, grief, and vexation!(1001) Then follows the horrible crime of\nReuben, his first\u2010born, than which no greater affliction could befall him.\nFor if the pollution of a man\u2019s wife be numbered among the greatest\nmiseries, what shall we say of it, when the crime is perpetrated by his\nown son?(1002) Not long after, his family is contaminated with\nincest;(1003) so that such a number of disgraceful occurrences may be\nexpected to break a heart otherwise very firm and unbroken by calamities.\nTowards the end of life, when he is seeking sustenance for himself and\nfamily in a season of famine, his ears are wounded by the report of a new\ncalamity, which informs him that one of his sons is detained in prison;\nand in order to recover him he is obliged to intrust his darling Benjamin\nto the care of the rest.(1004) Who can suppose that in such an\naccumulation of distresses he had a single moment of respite? He himself,\nwho is best able to give a testimony respecting himself, declares to\nPharaoh, that his days on the earth have been few and evil.(1005) By\naffirming that he has lived in continual miseries, he denies that he has\nenjoyed that prosperity which the Lord had promised him. Therefore either\nJacob formed an improper and ungrateful estimate of the favour of God, or\nhe spake the truth in asserting that he had been miserable on the earth.\nIf his affirmation was true, it follows that his hope was not fixed on\nterrestrial things.\n\nXIII. If these holy fathers expected, as undoubtedly they did expect, a\nlife of happiness from the hand of God, they both knew and contemplated a\ndifferent kind of blessedness from that of this terrestrial life. This the\napostle very beautifully shows, when he says, \u201cBy faith Abraham sojourned\nin the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles\nwith Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he\nlooked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.\nThese all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen\nthem afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them and confessed\nthat they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such\nthings declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly if they had\nbeen mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have\nhad opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country,\nthat is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God;\nfor he hath prepared for them a city.\u201d(1006) For they would have been\nstupid beyond all comparison, so steadily to follow promises, of which\nthere appeared no hope on earth, unless they had expected the completion\nof them in another world. But the apostle, with great force, principally\ninsists on this\u2014that they called the present life a _pilgrimage_, as is\nalso stated by Moses.(1007) For if they were strangers and sojourners in\nthe land of Canaan, what became of the Divine promise, by which they had\nbeen appointed heirs of it? This manifestly implies, therefore, that the\npromise, which the Lord had given them concerning the possession of it,\nrelated to something more remote. Wherefore they never acquired a foot of\nland in Canaan, except for a sepulchre; by which they testified that they\nhad no hope of enjoying the benefit of the promise till after death. And\nthis is the reason why Jacob thought it so exceedingly desirable to be\nburied there, that he made his son Joseph promise it to him by oath;(1008)\nand why Joseph commanded that his bones should be removed thither, even\nseveral ages after his death, when they would have been long reduced to\nashes.(1009)\n\nXIV. In short, it evidently appears, that in all the pursuits of life they\nkept in view the blessedness of the future state. For why should Jacob\nhave so eagerly desired, and exposed himself to such danger in\nendeavouring to obtain, the primogeniture, which would occasion his exile,\nand almost his rejection from his family, but from which he could derive\nno possible benefit, unless he had his views fixed on a nobler blessing?\nAnd that such was his view he declared in these words, which he uttered\nwith his expiring breath: \u201cI have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.\u201d(1010)\nWhat salvation could he expect, when he felt himself about to expire,\nunless he had seen in death the commencement of a new life? But why do we\nargue concerning the saints and children of God, when even one, who in\nother respects endeavoured to oppose the truth, was not entirely destitute\nof such a knowledge? For what was the meaning of Balaam, when he said,\n\u201cLet me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like\nhis,\u201d(1011) but the same which David afterwards expressed in the following\nwords? \u201cPrecious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his\nsaints.\u201d(1012) \u201cEvil shall slay the wicked.\u201d(1013) If death were the\nultimate bound of human existence, no difference could be observed in it\nbetween the righteous and the impious; the distinction between them\nconsists in the different destinies which await them after death.\n\nXV. We have not yet proceeded beyond Moses; whose only office, our\nopponents allege, was to persuade a carnal people to the worship of God by\nthe fertility of the land, and an abundance of all things: and yet, unless\nany one wilfully rejects the evidence presented to him, we already\ndiscover a clear declaration of a spiritual covenant. But if we come down\nto the prophets, there we have the fullest revelation both of eternal life\nand of the kingdom of Christ. And first, with what perspicuity and\ncertainty does David direct all his writings to this end; though, as he\nwas prior to the rest in point of time, so, according to the order of the\nDivine dispensation, he shadowed forth the heavenly mysteries more\nobscurely than they did! What estimate he formed of his terrestrial\nhabitation, the following passage declares: \u201cI am a stranger with thee,\nand a sojourner, as all my fathers were. Verily, every man at his best\nestate is altogether vanity. Surely every man walketh in a vain show. And\nnow, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee.\u201d(1014) He who, after\nhaving confessed that there is nothing substantial or permanent on earth,\nstill retains the constancy of his hope in God, certainly contemplates the\nfelicity reserved for him in another world. To this contemplation he\nfrequently recalls the faithful, whenever he wishes to afford them true\nconsolation. For in another place, after having spoken of the brevity and\nthe transitory nature of human life, he adds, \u201cBut the mercy of the Lord\nis from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him.\u201d(1015) Similar\nto which is the following: \u201cOf old hast thou laid the foundations of the\nearth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but\nthou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a\nvesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but thou art\nthe same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of thy servants\nshall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.\u201d(1016)\nIf, notwithstanding the destruction of heaven and earth, the pious cease\nnot to be established before the Lord, it follows that their salvation is\nconnected with his eternity. But this hope cannot be at all supported,\nunless it rest on the promise which we find in Isaiah: \u201cThe heavens,\u201d\nsaith the Lord, \u201cshall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old\nlike a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but\nmy salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be\nabolished;\u201d(1017) where perpetuity is ascribed to righteousness and\nsalvation, considered not as resident in God, but as experienced by men.\n\nXVI. Nor can what he frequently says concerning the prosperity of the\nfaithful be understood in any other sense than as referring to the\nmanifestation of the glory of heaven. Such are the following passages:\n\u201cThe Lord preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of\nthe hand of the wicked. Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for\nthe upright in heart.\u201d(1018) Again: \u201cThe righteousness of the righteous\nendureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour. The desire of\nthe wicked shall perish.\u201d(1019) Again: \u201cSurely the righteous shall give\nthanks unto thy name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence.\u201d(1020)\nAgain: \u201cThe righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance.\u201d(1021)\nAgain: \u201cThe Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants.\u201d(1022) For the Lord\nfrequently leaves his servants to the rage of the impious, not only to be\nharassed, but to be torn asunder and ruined; he suffers good men to\nlanguish in obscurity and meanness, while the impious are almost as\nglorious as the stars; nor does he exhilarate the faithful with the light\nof his countenance, so that they can enjoy any lasting pleasure. Wherefore\nDavid does not dissemble that, if the faithful fix their eyes on the\npresent state of things, they will be most grievously tempted with an\napprehension lest innocence should obtain from God neither favour nor\nreward. So much does impiety in most cases prosper and flourish, while the\npious are oppressed with ignominy, poverty, contempt, and distress of\nevery kind. \u201cMy feet,\u201d says he, \u201cwere almost gone; my steps had well nigh\nslipped. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of\nthe wicked.\u201d(1023) At length he concludes his account of them: \u201cWhen I\nthought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the\nsanctuary of God; then understood I their end.\u201d(1024)\n\nXVII. We may learn, then, even from this confession of David, that the\nholy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant, that God rarely or\nnever in this world gives his servants those things which he promises\nthem, and that, therefore, they elevated their minds to the sanctuary of\nGod, where they had a treasure in reserve which is not visible amid the\nshadows of the present life. This sanctuary was the last judgment, which,\nnot being discernible by their eyes, they were contented to apprehend by\nfaith. Relying on this confidence, whatever events might befall them in\nthe world, they, nevertheless, had no doubt that there would come a time\nwhen the Divine promises would be fulfilled. This is evident from the\nfollowing passages: \u201cI will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be\nsatisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.\u201d(1025) Again: \u201cI am like a\ngreen olive\u2010tree in the house of God.\u201d(1026) Again: \u201cThe righteous shall\nflourish like the palm\u2010tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those\nthat be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of\nour God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat\nand flourishing.\u201d He had just before said, \u201cO Lord, how great are thy\nworks! and thy thoughts are very deep. When the wicked spring as the\ngrass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they\nshall be destroyed for ever.\u201d(1027) Where can this beauty and gracefulness\nof the faithful be found, but where the appearance of this world has been\nreversed by the manifestation of the kingdom of God? When they could turn\ntheir eyes towards that eternity, despising the momentary rigour of\npresent calamities, they securely broke forth into the following\nexpressions: \u201cThe Lord shall never suffer the righteous to be moved. But\nthou, O God, shalt bring them\u201d (wicked men) \u201cdown into the pit of\ndestruction.\u201d(1028) Where, in this world, is the pit of destruction, to\nabsorb the wicked, as an instance of whose felicity it is mentioned in\nanother place that without languishing for any long time \u201cthey go down to\nthe grave in a moment?\u201d(1029) Where is that great stability of the saints,\nwhom David himself, in the language of complaint, frequently represents as\nnot only troubled, but oppressed and consumed? He certainly had in view,\nnot any thing that results from the agitations of the world, which are\neven more tumultuous than those of the sea, but what will be accomplished\nby the Lord, when he shall one day sit in judgment to fix the everlasting\ndestiny of heaven and earth. This appears from another psalm, in which he\ngives the following beautiful description: \u201cThey that trust in their\nwealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of\nthem can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for\nhim. For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish\nperson perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward thought is,\nthat their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling\u2010places to\nall generations; they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless\nman being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. This\ntheir way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Like\nsheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the\nupright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty\nshall consume in the grave from their dwelling.\u201d(1030) In the first place,\nthis derision of fools, for placing their dependence on the mutable and\ntransitory blessings of the world, shows that the wise ought to seek a\nvery different felicity. But he more evidently discloses the mystery of\nthe resurrection, when he establishes the reign of the pious after the\nruin and destruction of the wicked. For what shall we understand by \u201cthe\nmorning\u201d which he mentions, but the revelation of a new life commencing\nafter the conclusion of the present?\n\nXVIII. Hence arose that reflection, which served the faithful as a\nconsolation under their miseries, and a remedy for their sufferings: \u201cThe\nanger of the Lord endureth but a moment; in his favour is life.\u201d(1031) How\ndid they limit their afflictions to a moment, who were afflicted all their\nlifetime? When did they perceive so long a duration of the Divine\ngoodness, of which they had scarcely the smallest taste? If their views\nhad been confined to the earth, they could have made no such discovery;\nbut as they directed their eyes towards heaven, they perceived, that the\nafflictions with which the Lord exercises his saints are but \u201cfor a small\nmoment,\u201d and that the \u201cmercies\u201d with which he \u201cgathers\u201d them are\n\u201ceverlasting.\u201d(1032) On the other hand, they foresaw the eternal and\nnever\u2010ending perdition of the impious, who had been happy, as in a dream,\nfor a single day. Hence the following sentiments: \u201cThe memory of the just\nis blessed; but the name of the wicked shall rot.\u201d(1033) \u201cPrecious in the\nsight of the Lord is the death of his saints.\u201d(1034) Also in Samuel: \u201cThe\nLord will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in\ndarkness.\u201d(1035) These expressions suggest to us, that they well knew,\nthat whatever vicissitudes may befall the saints, yet their last end will\nbe life and salvation; and that the prosperity of the impious is a\npleasant path, which gradually leads to the gulf of everlasting death.\nTherefore they called the death of such the \u201cdestruction of the\nuncircumcised,\u201d(1036) as of those from whom all hope of resurrection had\nbeen cut off. Wherefore David could not conceive a more grievous\nimprecation than this: \u201cLet them be blotted out of the book of the living,\nand not be written with the righteous.\u201d(1037)\n\nXIX. But the following declaration of Job is remarkable beyond all others:\n\u201cI know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day\nupon the earth; and though after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in\nmy flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall\nbehold, and not another.\u201d(1038) Some, who wish to display their critical\nsagacity, cavil that this is not to be understood of the final\nresurrection, but even of the first day on which Job expected God to be\nmore propitious to him. Though we partly concede this, we shall extort an\nacknowledgment from them, whether they are willing or not, that Job could\nnever have attained to such an enlarged hope, if his thoughts had been\nconfined to the earth. We must, therefore, be obliged to confess that he,\nwho saw that his Redeemer would be present with him even when lying in the\nsepulchre, must have elevated his views to a future immortality. For to\nthem, who think only of the present life, death is a source of extreme\ndespair, which, however, could not annihilate his hope. \u201cThough he slay\nme,\u201d said he, \u201cyet will I trust in him.\u201d(1039) Nor let any trifler here\nobject, that these were the expressions of a few persons, and are far from\nfurnishing proof that such a doctrine was current among the Jews. I will\nimmediately reply, that these few persons did not in these declarations\nreveal any recondite wisdom, in which only superior understandings were\nseparately and privately instructed; but that the Holy Spirit having\nconstituted them teachers of the people, they publicly promulgated the\nDivine mysteries which were to be generally received, and to be the\nprinciples of the popular religion. When we hear the public oracles of the\nHoly Spirit, therefore, in which he has so clearly and evidently spoken of\nthe spiritual life in the Jewish church, it would be intolerable\nperverseness to apply them entirely to the carnal covenant, in which no\nmention is made but of the earth and earthly opulence.\n\nXX. If we descend to the later prophets, there we may freely expatiate as\nquite at home. For if it was not difficult to prove our point from David,\nJob, and Samuel, we shall do it there with much greater facility. For this\nis the order and economy which God observed in dispensing the covenant of\nhis mercy, that as the course of time accelerated the period of its full\nexhibition, he illustrated it from day to day with additional revelations.\nTherefore, in the beginning, when the first promise was given to Adam, it\nwas like the kindling of some feeble sparks. Subsequent accessions caused\na considerable enlargement of the light, which continued to increase more\nand more, and diffused its splendour through a wide extent, till at\nlength, every cloud being dissipated, Christ, the Sun of Righteousness,\ncompletely illuminated the whole world. There is no reason to fear,\ntherefore, if we want the suffrages of the prophets in support of our\ncause, that they will fail us. But as I perceive it would be a very\nextensive field, which would engross more of our attention than the nature\nof our design will admit,\u2014for it would furnish matter for a large\nvolume,\u2014and as I also think that by what has been already said, I have\nprepared the way even for a reader of small penetration to proceed without\nany difficulties, I shall abstain from a prolixity which at present is not\nvery necessary. I shall only caution the reader to advance with the clew\nwhich we have put into his hand; namely, that whenever the prophets\nmention the blessedness of the faithful, scarcely any vestiges of which\nare discernible in the present life, he should recur to this distinction;\nthat in order to the better elucidation of the Divine goodness, the\nprophets represented it to the people in a figurative manner; but that\nthey gave such a representation of it as would withdraw the mind from\nearth and time, and the elements of this world, all which must ere long\nperish, and would necessarily excite to a contemplation of the felicity of\nthe future spiritual life.\n\nXXI. We will content ourselves with one example. When the Israelites,\nafter being carried to Babylon, perceived how very much their dispersion\nresembled a death, they could scarcely be convinced that the prophecy of\nEzekiel concerning their restitution(1040) was not a mere fable; for they\nconsidered it in the same light, as if he had announced, that putrid\ncarcasses would be restored to life. The Lord, in order to show that even\nthat difficulty would not prevent him from displaying his beneficence,\ngave the prophet a vision of a field full of dry bones, which he\ninstantaneously restored to life and vigour solely by the power of his\nword. The vision served indeed to correct the existing incredulity; but at\nthe same time it reminded the Jews, how far the power of the Lord extended\nbeyond the restoration of the people, since the mere expression of his\nwill so easily reanimated the dry and dispersed bones. Wherefore you may\nproperly compare that passage with another of Isaiah: \u201cThy dead men shall\nlive; together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that\ndwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall\ncast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut\nthy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until\nthe indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place\nto punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also\nshall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.\u201d(1041)\n\nXXII. It would be absurd, however, to attempt to reduce every passage to\nsuch a canon of interpretation. For there are some places, which show\nwithout any disguise the future immortality which awaits the faithful in\nthe kingdom of God. Such are some which we have recited, and such are many\nothers, but particularly these two; one in Isaiah: \u201cAs the new heavens and\nthe new earth which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord,\nso shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that\nfrom one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all\nflesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth,\nand look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me;\nfor their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.\u201d(1042)\nAnd another in Daniel: \u201cAt that time shall Michael stand up, the great\nprince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a\ntime of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that\nsame time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that\nshall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the\ndust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame\nand everlasting contempt.\u201d(1043)\n\nXXIII. Now, the two remaining points, that the fathers had Christ as the\npledge of their covenant, and that they reposed in him all their\nconfidence of the blessing, being less controvertible and more plain, I\nshall take no pains to prove them. We may safely conclude, therefore, what\nall the machinations of the devil can never subvert, that the Old\nTestament, or covenant which the Lord made with the Israelitish nation,\nwas not limited to terrestrial things, but contained a promise of\nspiritual and eternal life; the expectation of which must have been\nimpressed on the minds of all who truly consented to the covenant. Then\nlet us drive far away from us this absurd and pernicious notion, either\nthat the Lord proposed nothing else to the Jews, or that the Jews sought\nnothing else, but an abundance of food, carnal delights, flourishing\nwealth, external power, a numerous offspring, and whatever is esteemed\nvaluable by a natural man. For under the present dispensation, Christ\npromises to his people no other kingdom of heaven, than where they may sit\ndown with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;(1044) and Peter asserted the Jews of\nhis time to be heirs of the grace of the gospel, when he said that \u201cthey\nwere the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with\ntheir fathers.\u201d(1045) And that this might not only be testified in words,\nthe Lord also proved it by a matter of fact. For on the day in which he\nrose from the dead, he honoured many of the saints with a participation of\nhis resurrection, and caused them to appear in the city;(1046) thus\nfurnishing a certain assurance that whatever he did and suffered for the\nacquisition of eternal salvation, belonged to the faithful of the Old\nTestament as much as to us. For, as Peter declares, they also were endued\nwith the same Spirit, who is the author of our regeneration to life.(1047)\nWhen we are informed that the same Spirit, which is as it were a spark of\nimmortality in us, and is therefore called in one place \u201cthe earnest of\nour inheritance,\u201d(1048) dwelt in a similar manner in them, how can we dare\nto deprive them of the inheritance of eternal life? It is therefore the\nmore surprising, that the Sadducees formerly fell into such stupidity as\nto deny the resurrection, and the immortality of the soul, since they had\nproofs of these points from such clear testimonies of Scripture. And the\nfolly of the whole nation of the Jews in the present age, in expecting an\nearthly kingdom of the Messiah, would be equally extraordinary, had not\nthe Scriptures long before predicted that they would thus be punished for\ntheir rejection of the gospel. For it was consistent with the righteous\njudgment of God to strike with blindness the minds of those, who,\nrejecting the light of heaven when presented to them, kept themselves in\nvoluntary darkness. Therefore they read Moses, and assiduously turn over\nhis pages, but are prevented by an interposing veil from perceiving the\nlight which beams in his countenance;(1049) and thus it will remain\ncovered and concealed to them, till they are converted to Christ, from\nwhom they now endeavour as much as they can to withdraw and divert it.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XI. The Difference Of The Two Testaments.\n\n\nWhat, then, it will be said, will there be no difference left between the\nOld Testament and the New? and what becomes of all those passages of\nScripture, where they are compared together as things that are very\ndifferent? I readily admit the differences which are mentioned in the\nScripture, but I maintain that they derogate nothing from the unity\nalready established; as will be seen when we have discussed them in proper\norder. But the principal differences, as far as my observation or memory\nextends, are four in number; to which if any one choose to add a fifth, I\nshall not make the least objection. I assert, and engage to demonstrate,\nthat all these are such as pertain rather to the mode of administration,\nthan to the substance. In this view, they will not prevent the promises of\nthe Old and New Testament from remaining the same, and the promises of\nboth Testaments from having in Christ the same foundation. Now, the first\ndifference is, that although it was always the will of the Lord that the\nminds of his people should be directed, and their hearts elevated, towards\nthe celestial inheritance, yet, in order that they might be the better\nencouraged to hope for it, he anciently exhibited it for their\ncontemplation and partial enjoyment under the figures of terrestrial\nblessings. Now, having by the gospel more clearly and explicitly revealed\nthe grace of the future life, he leaves the inferior mode of instruction\nwhich he used with the Israelites, and directs our minds to the immediate\ncontemplation of it. Those who overlook this design of God, suppose that\nthe ancients ascended no higher than the corporeal blessings which were\npromised them; they so frequently hear the land of Canaan mentioned as the\neminent, and indeed the only, reward for the observers of the Divine law.\nThey hear that God threatens the transgressors of this law with nothing\nmore severe than being expelled from the possession of that country, and\ndispersed into foreign lands. They see this to be nearly the whole\nsubstance of all the blessings and of all the curses pronounced by Moses.\nHence they confidently conclude, that the Jews were separated from other\nnations, not for their own sakes, but for ours, that the Christian Church\nmight have an image, in whose external form they could discern examples of\nspiritual things. But since the Scripture frequently shows, that God\nhimself appointed the terrestrial advantages with which he favoured them\nfor the express purpose of leading them to the hope of celestial\nblessings, it argued extreme inexperience, not to say stupidity, not to\nconsider such a dispensation. The point of controversy between us and\nthese persons, is this: they maintain that the possession of the land of\nCanaan was accounted by the Israelites their supreme and ultimate\nblessedness, but that to us, since the revelation of Christ, it is a\nfigure of the heavenly inheritance. We, on the contrary, contend, that in\nthe earthly possession which they enjoyed, they contemplated, as in a\nmirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be prepared for them\nin heaven.\n\nII. This will more fully appear from the similitude which Paul has used in\nhis Epistle to the Galatians.(1050) He compares the Jewish nation to a\nyoung heir, who, being yet incapable of governing himself, follows the\ndictates of a tutor or a governor, to whose charge he has been committed.\nHis application of this similitude chiefly to the ceremonies, is no\nobjection against the propriety of its application to our present purpose.\nThe same inheritance was destined for them as for us; but they were not of\na sufficient age to be capable of entering on the possession and\nmanagement of it. The Church among them was the same as among us; but it\nwas yet in a state of childhood. Therefore the Lord kept them under this\ntuition, that he might give them the spiritual promises, not open and\nunconcealed, but veiled under terrestrial figures. Therefore, when he\nadmitted Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their posterity, to the hope of\nimmortality, he promised them the land of Canaan as their inheritance; not\nthat their hopes might terminate in that land, but that in the prospect of\nit they might exercise and confirm themselves in the hope of that true\ninheritance which was not yet visible. And that they might not be\ndeceived, a superior promise was given them, which proved that country not\nto be the highest blessing which God would bestow. Thus Abraham is not\npermitted to grow indolent after having received a promise of the land,\nbut a greater promise elevates his mind to the Lord. For he hears him\nsaying, \u201cAbram, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.\u201d(1051)\nHere we see that the Lord proposes himself to Abraham as his ultimate\nreward, that he may not seek an uncertain and transitory one in the\nelements of this world, but may consider that which can never fade away.\nGod afterwards annexes a promise of the land, merely as a symbol of his\nbenevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance. And that this was the\nopinion of the saints, is plain from their own language. Thus David rises\nfrom temporary blessings to that consummate and ultimate felicity. \u201cMy\nsoul longeth, yea, even fainteth, for the courts of the Lord.\u201d(1052) \u201cGod\nis my portion for ever.\u201d(1053) Again: \u201cThe Lord is the portion of mine\ninheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.\u201d(1054) Again: \u201cI cried\nunto thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land\nof the living.\u201d(1055) Persons who venture to express themselves thus,\ncertainly profess that in their hopes they rise above the world and all\npresent blessings. Nevertheless the prophets frequently describe this\nblessedness of the future world under the type which the Lord had given\nthem. In this sense we must understand the following passages: \u201cThe\nrighteous shall inherit the land;\u201d(1056) \u201cBut the wicked shall be cut off\nfrom the earth;\u201d(1057) and various predictions of Isaiah, which foretell\nthe future prosperity of Jerusalem, and the abundance that will be enjoyed\nin Zion. We see that all these things are inapplicable to the land of our\npilgrimage, or to the earthly Jerusalem, but that they belong to the true\ncountry of the faithful, and to that celestial city, where \u201cthe Lord\ncommanded the blessing, even life for evermore.\u201d(1058)\n\nIII. This is the reason why the saints, under the Old Testament, are\nrepresented as holding this mortal life with its blessings in higher\nestimation than becomes us now. For although they well knew that they\nought not to rest in it as the end of their course, yet when they\nrecollected what characters of his grace the Lord had impressed on it, in\norder to instruct them in a manner suitable to their tender state, they\nfelt a greater degree of pleasure in it than if they had considered it\nmerely in itself. But as the Lord, in declaring his benevolence to the\nfaithful by present blessings, gave them, under these types and symbols, a\nfigurative exhibition of spiritual felicity, so, on the other hand, in\ncorporal punishments he exemplified his judgment against the reprobate.\nTherefore, as the favours of God were more conspicuous in earthly things,\nso also were his punishments. Injudicious persons, not considering this\nanalogy and harmony (so to speak) between the punishments and rewards,\nwonder at so great a variety in God, that in ancient times he was ready to\navenge all the transgressions of men by the immediate infliction of severe\nand dreadful punishments, but now, as if he had laid aside his ancient\nwrath, punishes with far less severity and frequency; and on this account\nthey almost adopt the notion of the Manich\u00e6ans, that the God of the Old\nTestament is a different being from the God of the New. But we shall\neasily get rid of such difficulties, if we direct our attention to that\ndispensation of God, which I have observed; namely, that during that\nperiod, in which he gave the Israelites his covenant involved in some\ndegree of obscurity, he intended to signify and prefigure the grace of\nfuture and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, and the grievousness\nof spiritual death by corporal punishments.\n\nIV. Another difference between the Old Testament and the New consists in\nfigures, because the former, in the absence of the truth, displayed merely\nan image and shadow instead of the body; but the latter exhibits the\npresent truth and the substantial body.(1059) And this is generally\nmentioned wherever the New Testament is opposed to the Old, but is treated\nmore at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any other place.(1060)\nThe apostle is there disputing against those who supposed that the\nobservance of the Mosaic law could not be abolished, without being\nfollowed by the total ruin of religion. To refute this error, he adduces\nthe prediction of the psalmist concerning the priesthood of Christ;(1061)\nfor since he has an eternal priesthood committed to him, we may argue the\ncertain abolition of that priesthood, in which new priests daily succeeded\neach other.(1062) But he proves the superiority of the appointment of this\nnew Priest, because it is confirmed with an oath.(1063) He afterwards adds\nthat this transfer of the priesthood implies also a change of the\ncovenant.(1064) And he proves that this change was necessary, because such\nwas the imbecility of the law, that it could bring nothing to\nperfection.(1065) Then he proceeds to state the nature of this imbecility;\nnamely, that the law prescribed external righteousnesses, consisting in\ncarnal ordinances, which could not make the observers of them \u201cperfect as\npertaining to the conscience,\u201d that by animal victims it could neither\nexpiate sins nor procure true holiness.(1066) He concludes, therefore,\nthat it contained \u201ca shadow of good things to come, but not the very image\nof the things;\u201d(1067) and that consequently it had no other office, but to\nserve as an introduction to \u201ca better hope,\u201d(1068) which is exhibited in\nthe gospel. Here we have to inquire in what respect the Legal covenant is\ncompared with the Evangelical, the ministry of Christ with the ministry of\nMoses. For if the comparison related to the substance of the promises,\nthere would be a great discordance between the two testaments; but as the\nstate of the question leads us to a different point, we must attend to the\nscope of the apostle, in order to discover the truth. Let us, then, bring\nforward the covenant, which God has once made, which is eternal, and never\nto be abolished. The accomplishment, whence it derives its establishment\nand ratification, is Christ. While such a confirmation was waited for, the\nLord by Moses prescribed ceremonies, to serve as solemn symbols of the\nconfirmation. It came to be a subject of contention, whether the\nceremonies ordained in the law ought to cease and give place to Christ.\nNow, though these ceremonies were only accidents or concomitants of the\ncovenant, yet being the instruments of its administration, they bear the\nname of the covenant; as it is common to give to other sacraments the\nnames of the things they represent. In a word, therefore, what is here\ncalled the Old Testament is a solemn method of confirming the covenant,\nconsisting of ceremonies and sacrifices. Since it contains nothing\nsubstantial, unless we proceed further, the apostle contends that it ought\nto be repealed and abrogated, in order to make way for Christ, the Surety\nand Mediator of a better testament,(1069) by whom eternal sanctification\nhas been at once procured for the elect, and those transgressions\nobliterated, which remained under the law. Or, if you prefer it, take the\nfollowing statement of it; that the Old Testament of the Lord was that\nwhich was delivered to the Jews, involved in a shadowy and inefficacious\nobservance of ceremonies, and that it was therefore temporary, because it\nremained as it were in suspense, till it was supported by a firm and\nsubstantial confirmation; but that it was made new and eternal, when it\nwas consecrated and established by the blood of Christ. Whence Christ\ncalls the cup which he gives to his disciples in the supper, \u201cthe cup of\nthe New Testament in his blood;\u201d(1070) to signify that when the testament\nof God is sealed with his blood, the truth of it is then accomplished, and\nthus it is made new and eternal.\n\nV. Hence it appears in what sense the apostle said, that the Jews were\nconducted to Christ by the tuition of the law, before he was manifested in\nthe flesh.(1071) He confesses also that they were children and heirs of\nGod, but such as, on account of their age, required to be kept under the\ncare of a tutor.(1072) For it was reasonable that before the Sun of\nRighteousness was risen, there should be neither such a full blaze of\nrevelation, nor such great clearness of understanding. Therefore the Lord\ndispensed the light of his word to them in such a manner, that they had\nyet only a distant and obscure prospect of it. Paul describes this\nslenderness of understanding as a state of childhood, which it was the\nLord\u2019s will to exercise in the elements of this world and in external\nobservances, as rules of puerile discipline, till the manifestation of\nChrist, by whom the knowledge of the faithful was to grow to maturity.\nChrist himself alluded to this distinction, when he said, \u201cThe law and the\nprophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is\npreached.\u201d(1073) What discoveries did Moses and the prophets make to their\ncontemporaries? They afforded them some taste of that wisdom which was in\nafter times to be clearly manifested, and gave them a distant prospect of\nits future splendour. But when Christ could be plainly pointed out, the\nkingdom of God was revealed. For in him are discovered \u201call the treasures\nof wisdom and knowledge,\u201d(1074) by which we penetrate almost into the\nfurthest recesses of heaven.\n\nVI. Nor is it any objection to our argument, that scarcely a person can be\nfound in the Christian Church, who is to be compared with Abraham in the\nexcellency of his faith; or that the prophets were distinguished by such\nenergy of the Spirit as, even at this day, is sufficient to illuminate the\nwhole world. For our present inquiry is, not what grace the Lord has\nconferred on a few, but what is the ordinary method which he has pursued\nin the instruction of his people; such as is found even among the prophets\nthemselves, who were endued with peculiar knowledge above others. For\ntheir preaching is obscure, as relating to things very distant, and is\ncomprehended in types. Besides, notwithstanding their wonderful eminence\nin knowledge, yet because they were under a necessity of submitting to the\nsame tuition as the rest of the people, they are considered as sustaining\nthe character of children as well as others. Finally, none of them\npossessed knowledge so clear as not to partake more or less of the\nobscurity of the age. Whence this observation of Christ: \u201cMany prophets\nand kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen\nthem; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard\nthem.\u201d(1075) \u201cBlessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they\nhear.\u201d(1076) And, indeed, it is reasonable that the presence of Christ\nshould be distinguished by the prerogative of introducing a clearer\nrevelation of the mysteries of heaven. To the same purpose also is the\npassage, which we have before cited from the First Epistle of Peter, that\nit was revealed to them, that the principal advantage of their labours\nwould be experienced in our times.(1077)\n\nVII. I come now to the third difference, which is taken from Jeremiah,\nwhose words are these: \u201cBehold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will\nmake a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;\nnot according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day\nthat I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which\nmy covenant they brake, although I was a husband to them, saith the Lord;\nbut this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.\nAfter those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts,\nand write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my\npeople. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every\nman his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from\nthe least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will\nforgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.\u201d(1078) From\nthis passage the apostle took occasion to institute the following\ncomparison between the law and the gospel: he calls the former a literal,\nthe latter a spiritual doctrine; the former, he says, was engraven on\ntables of stone, but the latter is inscribed on the heart;(1079) the\nformer was the preaching of death, but the latter of life; the former was\nthe ministration of condemnation, but the latter of righteousness; the\nformer is abolished, but the latter remains. As the design of the apostle\nwas to express the sense of the prophet, it will be sufficient for us to\nconsider the language of one of them, in order to discover the meaning of\nboth. There is, however, some difference between them. For the apostle\nspeaks of the law in less honourable terms than the prophet does; and that\nnot simply with respect to the law itself, but, because there were some\ndisturbers, who were full of improper zeal for the law, and by their\nperverse attachment to the ceremonies obscured the glory of the gospel, he\ndisputes concerning the nature of the law with reference to their error\nand foolish affection for it. This peculiarity in Paul, therefore, will be\nworthy of our observation. Both of them, as they contrast the Old and New\nTestaments with each other, consider nothing in the law, but what properly\nbelongs to it. For example, the law contains frequent promises of mercy;\nbut as they are borrowed from another dispensation, they are not\nconsidered as part of the law, when the mere nature of the law is the\nsubject of discussion. All that they attribute to it is, that it enjoins\nwhat is right, and prohibits crimes; that it proclaims a reward for the\nfollowers of righteousness, and denounces punishments against\ntransgressors; but that it neither changes nor corrects the depravity of\nheart which is natural to all men.\n\nVIII. Now, let us explain the comparison of the apostle in all its\nbranches. In the first place, the Old Testament is literal, because it was\npromulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit; the New is spiritual,\nbecause the Lord has engraven it in a spiritual manner on the hearts of\nmen. The second contrast, therefore, serves as an elucidation of the\nfirst. The Old Testament is the revelation of death, because it can only\ninvolve all mankind in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because\nit delivers us from the curse, and restores us to favour with God. The\nformer is the ministry of condemnation, because it convicts all the\nchildren of Adam of unrighteousness; the latter is the ministry of\nrighteousness, because it reveals the mercy of God, by which we are made\nrighteous. The last contrast must be referred to the legal ceremonies. The\nlaw having an image of things that were at a distance, it was necessary\nthat in time it should be abolished and disappear. The gospel, exhibiting\nthe body itself, retains a firm and perpetual stability. Jeremiah calls\neven the moral law a weak and frail covenant, but for another reason;\nnamely, because it was soon broken by the sudden defection of an\nungrateful people. But as such a violation arises from the fault of the\npeople, it cannot be properly attributed to the Testament. The ceremonies,\nhowever, which at the advent of Christ were abolished by their own\nweakness, contained in themselves the cause of their abrogation. Now, this\ndifference between the \u201cletter\u201d and the \u201cspirit\u201d is not to be understood\nas if the Lord had given his law to the Jews without any beneficial\nresult, without one of them being converted to him; but it is used in a\nway of comparison, to display the plenitude of grace with which the same\nLegislator, assuming as it were a new character, has honoured the\npreaching of the gospel. For if we survey the multitude of those, from\namong all nations, whom, by the influence of his Spirit in the preaching\nof the gospel, the Lord has regenerated and gathered into communion with\nhis Church, we shall say that those of the ancient Israelites, who\ncordially and sincerely embraced the covenant of the Lord, were extremely\nfew; though, if estimated by themselves without any comparison, they\namounted to a considerable number.\n\nIX. The fourth difference arises out of the third. For the Scripture calls\nthe Old Testament a covenant of bondage, because it produces fear in the\nmind; but the New it describes as a covenant of liberty, because it leads\nthe heart to confidence and security. Thus Paul, in the eighth chapter of\nhis Epistle to the Romans, says, \u201cYe have not received the spirit of\nbondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption,\nwhereby we cry, Abba, Father.\u201d(1080) To the same purpose is that passage\nin the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the faithful now \u201care not come unto\nthe mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto\nblackness, and darkness, and tempest,\u201d where nothing can be either heard\nor seen, but what must strike terror into the mind; so that even Moses\nhimself is exceedingly afraid at the sound of the terrible voice, which\nthey all pray that they may hear no more; but that now the faithful \u201care\ncome unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly\nJerusalem,\u201d(1081) &c. What Paul briefly touches in the passage which we\nhave adduced from the Epistle to the Romans, he explains more at large in\nhis Epistle to the Galatians, when he allegorizes the two sons of Abraham\nin the following manner\u2014that Agar, the bond\u2010woman, is a type of mount\nSinai, where the people of Israel received the law; that Sarah, the free\u2010\nwoman, is a figure of the celestial Jerusalem, whence proceeds the gospel.\nThat as the son of Agar is born in bondage, and can never attain to the\ninheritance, and the son of Sarah is born free, and has a right to the\ninheritance,(1082) so by the law we were devoted to slavery, but by the\ngospel alone are regenerated to liberty. Now, the whole may be summed up\nthus\u2014that the Old Testament filled men\u2019s consciences with fear and\ntrembling; but that by the benefit of the New Testament, they are\ndelivered, and enabled to rejoice. The former kept their consciences under\na yoke of severe bondage; but by the liberality of the latter they are\nemancipated and admitted to liberty. If any one object to us the case of\nthe holy fathers of the Israelitish people, that as they were clearly\npossessed of the same spirit of faith as we are, they must consequently\nhave been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we reply, that neither of\nthese originated from the law; but that, when they felt themselves, by\nmeans of the law, oppressed with their servile condition, and wearied with\ndisquietude of conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel; and that\ntherefore it was a peculiar advantage of the New Testament, that they\nenjoyed an exception from the common law of the Old Testament, and were\nexempted from those evils. Besides, we shall deny that they were favoured\nwith the spirit of liberty and security, to such a degree as not to\nexperience from the law some measure both of fear and of servitude. For\nnotwithstanding their enjoyment of that privilege, which they obtained by\nthe grace of the gospel, yet they were subject to the same observances and\nburdens as the people in general. As they were obliged, therefore, to a\ndiligent observance of these ceremonies, which were emblems of the state\nof pupilage similar to bondage, and the hand\u2010writing, by which they\nconfessed themselves guilty of sin, did not release them from the\nobligation, they may justly be said, in comparison with us, to have been\nunder a testament of bondage and fear, when we consider the common mode of\nprocedure which the Lord then pursued with the Israelitish nation.\n\nX. The three last comparisons which we have mentioned are between the law\nand the gospel. In these, therefore, \u201cthe Old Testament\u201d denotes _the\nlaw_; and \u201cthe New Testament,\u201d _the gospel_. The first comparison extends\nfurther, for it comprehends also the promises, which were given before the\nlaw. When Augustine denied that they ought to be considered as part of the\nOld Testament, he gave a very proper opinion, and intended the same that\nwe now teach; for he had in view those passages of Jeremiah and Paul, in\nwhich the Old Testament is distinguished from the word of grace and mercy.\nHe very judiciously adds also in the same place, that the children of the\npromise, from the beginning of the world, who have been regenerated by\nGod, and, under the influence of faith working by love, have obeyed his\ncommands, belong to the New Testament; and _that_, in hope, not of carnal,\nterrestrial, and temporal things, but of spiritual, celestial, and eternal\nblessings; especially believing in the Mediator, through whom they doubted\nnot that the Spirit was dispensed to them to enable them to do their duty,\nand that whenever they sinned they were pardoned. For this is the very\nsame thing which I meant to assert: That all the saints, whom, from the\nbeginning of the world, the Scripture mentions as having been peculiarly\nchosen by God, have been partakers of the same blessing with us to eternal\nsalvation. Between our distinction and that of Augustine there is this\ndifference\u2014that ours (according to this declaration of Christ, \u201cthe law\nand the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is\npreached;\u201d)(1083) distinguishes between the clearness of the gospel and\nthe more obscure dispensation of the word which preceded it; whilst the\nother merely discriminates the weakness of the law from the stability of\nthe gospel. Here it must also be remarked concerning the holy fathers,\nthat though they lived under the Old Testament, they did not rest\nsatisfied with it, but always aspired after the New, and thus enjoyed a\ncertain participation of it. For all those who contented themselves with\npresent shadows, and did not extend their views to Christ, are condemned\nby the apostle as blind and under the curse. For, to say nothing on other\npoints, what greater ignorance can be imagined than to hope for an\nexpiation of sin by the sacrifice of an animal? than to seek for the\npurification of the soul by an external ablution with water? than to wish\nto appease God with frigid ceremonies, as though they afforded him great\npleasure? For all these absurdities are chargeable on those who adhere to\nthe observances of the law, without any reference to Christ.\n\nXI. The fifth difference, which we may add, consists in this\u2014that till the\nadvent of Christ, the Lord selected one nation, to which he would limit\nthe covenant of his grace. Moses says, \u201cWhen the Most High divided to the\nnations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,\u2014the Lord\u2019s\nportion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.\u201d(1084) In\nanother place he thus addresses the people: \u201cBehold, the heaven, and the\nheaven of heavens is the Lord\u2019s thy God, the earth also, with all that\ntherein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and\nhe chose their seed after them, even you above all people.\u201d(1085)\nTherefore he favoured that people with the exclusive knowledge of his\nname, as though they alone of all mankind belonged to him; he deposited\nhis covenant as it were in their bosom; to them he manifested the presence\nof his power; he honoured them with every privilege. But to omit the rest\nof his benefits, the only one that relates to our present argument is,\nthat he united them to himself by the communication of his word, in order\nthat he might be denominated and esteemed their God. In the mean time he\nsuffered other nations, as though they had no business or intercourse with\nhim, to walk in vanity;(1086) nor did he employ means to prevent their\ndestruction by sending them the only remedy\u2014the preaching of his word. The\nIsraelitish nation, therefore, were then as darling sons; others were\nstrangers: they were known to him, and received under his faithful\nprotection; others were left to their own darkness: they were sanctified\nby God; others were profane: they were honoured with the Divine presence;\nothers were excluded from approaching it. But when the fulness of the time\nwas come,(1087) appointed for the restoration of all things,(1088) and the\nReconciler of God and men was manifested,(1089) the barrier was\ndemolished, which had so long confined the Divine mercy within the limits\nof the Jewish church, and peace was announced to them who were at a\ndistance, and to them who were near, that being both reconciled to God,\nthey might coalesce into one people. Wherefore \u201cthere is neither Greek nor\nJew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, but Christ is all and in all;\u201d(1090)\n\u201cto whom the heathen are given for his inheritance, and the uttermost\nparts of the earth for his possession;\u201d(1091) that he may have a universal\n\u201cdominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the\nearth.\u201d(1092)\n\nXII. The vocation of the Gentiles, therefore, is an eminent illustration\nof the superior excellence of the New Testament above the Old. It had,\nindeed, before been most explicitly announced in numerous predictions of\nthe prophets; but so as that the completion of it was deferred to the\nkingdom of the Messiah. And even Christ himself made no advances towards\nit at the first commencement of his preaching, but deferred it till he\nshould have completed all the parts of our redemption, finished the time\nof his humiliation, and received from the Father \u201ca name which is above\nevery name, before which every knee shall bow.\u201d(1093) Wherefore, when this\nseason was not yet arrived, he said to a Canaanitish woman, \u201cI am not sent\nbut unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel:\u201d(1094) nor did he permit\nthe apostles, in his first mission of them, to exceed these limits. \u201cGo\nnot,\u201d says he, \u201cinto the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the\nSamaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael.\u201d(1095) And though this calling of the Gentiles was announced by so\nmany testimonies, yet when the apostles were about to enter upon it, it\nappeared to them so novel and strange, that they dreaded it, as if it had\nbeen a prodigy: indeed it was with trepidation and reluctance that they at\nlength engaged in it. Nor is this surprising; for it seemed not at all\nreasonable, that the Lord, who for so many ages had separated the\nIsraelites from the rest of the nations, should, as it were, suddenly\nchange his design, and annihilate this distinction. It had indeed been\npredicted in the prophecies; but they could not pay such great attention\nto the prophecies, as to be wholly unmoved with the novelty of the\ncircumstance, which forced itself on their observation. Nor were the\nspecimens, which the Lord had formerly given, of the future vocation of\nthe Gentiles, sufficient to influence them. For besides his having called\nonly very few of them, he had even incorporated them into the family of\nAbraham, that they might be added to his people; but by that public\nvocation, the Gentiles were not only raised to an equality with the Jews,\nbut appeared to succeed to their places as though they had been dead.\nBesides, of all the strangers whom God had before incorporated into the\nChurch, none were ever placed on an equality with the Jews. Therefore it\nis not without reason that Paul so celebrates this \u201cmystery which was\nhidden from ages and from generations,\u201d(1096) and which he represents as\nan object of admiration even to angels.(1097)\n\nXIII. In these four or five points, I think I have given a correct and\nfaithful statement of the whole of the difference between the Old and the\nNew Testament, as far as is sufficient for a simple system of doctrine.\nBut because some persons represent this variety in the government of the\nChurch, these different modes of instruction, and such a considerable\nalteration of rites and ceremonies, as a great absurdity, we must reply to\nthem, before we proceed to other subjects. And this may be done in a brief\nmanner, since the objections are not so strong as to require a laborious\nrefutation. It is not reasonable, they say, that God, who is perpetually\nconsistent with himself, should undergo so great a change as afterwards to\ndisallow what he had once enjoined and commanded. I reply, that God ought\nnot therefore to be deemed mutable, because he has accommodated different\nforms to different ages, as he knew would be suitable for each. If the\nhusbandman prescribes different employments to his family in the winter,\nfrom those which he allots them in the summer, we must not therefore\naccuse him of inconstancy, or impute to him a deviation from the proper\nrules of agriculture, which are connected with the perpetual course of\nnature. Thus, also, if a father instructs, governs, and manages his\nchildren one way in infancy, another in childhood, and another in youth,\nwe must not therefore charge him with being inconstant, or forsaking his\nown designs. Why, then, do we stigmatize God with the character of\ninconstancy, because he has made an apt and suitable distinction between\ndifferent times? The last similitude ought fully to satisfy us. Paul\ncompares the Jews to children, and Christians to youths.(1098) What\nimpropriety is there in this part of the government of God, that he\ndetained them in the rudiments which were suitable to them on account of\ntheir age, but has placed us under a stronger and more manly discipline?\nIt is a proof, therefore, of the constancy of God, that he has delivered\nthe same doctrine in all ages, and perseveres in requiring the same\nworship of his name which he commanded from the beginning. By changing the\nexternal form and mode, he has discovered no mutability in himself, but\nhas so far accommodated himself to the capacity of men, which is various\nand mutable.\n\nXIV. But they inquire whence this diversity proceeded, except from the\nwill of God. Could he not, as well from the beginning as since the advent\nof Christ, give a revelation of eternal life in clear language without any\nfigures, instruct his people by a few plain sacraments, bestow his Holy\nSpirit, and diffuse his grace through all the world? This is just the same\nas if they were to quarrel with God, because he created the world at so\nlate a period, whereas he might have done it before; or because he has\nappointed the alternate vicissitudes of summer and winter, of day and\nnight. But let us not doubt what ought to be believed by all pious men,\nthat whatever is done by God is done wisely and righteously; although we\nfrequently know nothing of the causes which render such transactions\nnecessary. For it would be arrogating too much to ourselves, not to permit\nGod to keep the reasons of his decrees concealed from us. But it is\nsurprising, say they, that he now rejects and abominates the sacrifices of\ncattle, and all the apparatus of the Levitical priesthood, with which he\nused to be delighted; as though truly these external and transitory things\ncould afford pleasure to God, or affect him in any way whatever. It has\nalready been observed, that he did none of these things on his own\naccount, but appointed them all for the salvation of men. If a physician\ncure a young man of any disease by a very excellent method, and afterwards\nadopt a different mode of cure with the same person when advanced in\nyears, shall we therefore say that he rejects the method of cure which he\nbefore approved? We will rather say, that he perseveres in the same\nsystem, and considers the difference of age. Thus it was necessary, before\nthe appearance of Christ, that he should be prefigured, and his future\nadvent announced by one kind of emblems; since he has been manifested, it\nis right that he should be represented by others. But with respect to the\nDivine vocation, now more widely extended among all nations since the\nadvent of Christ than it was before, and with regard to the more copious\neffusion of the graces of the Spirit, who can deny, that it is reasonable\nand just for God to retain under his own power and will the free\ndispensation of his favours; that he may illuminate what nations he\npleases; that wherever he pleases he may introduce the preaching of his\nword; that he may give to his instruction whatever kind and degree of\nprofit and success he pleases; that wherever he pleases, in any age, he\nmay punish the ingratitude of the world by depriving them of the knowledge\nof his name, and when he pleases restore it on account of his mercy? We\nsee, therefore, the absurdity of the cavils with which impious men disturb\nthe minds of the simple on this subject, to call in question either the\nrighteousness of God or the truth of the Scripture.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XII. The Necessity Of Christ Becoming Man In Order To Fulfil The\nOffice Of Mediator.\n\n\nIt was of great importance to our interests, that he, who was to be our\nMediator, should be both true God and true man. If an inquiry be made\nconcerning the necessity of this, it was not indeed a simple, or, as we\ncommonly say, an absolute necessity, but such as arose from the heavenly\ndecree, on which the salvation of men depended. But our most merciful\nFather has appointed that which was best for us. For since our iniquities,\nlike a cloud intervening between us and him, had entirely alienated us\nfrom the kingdom of heaven, no one that could not approach to God could be\na mediator for the restoration of peace. But who could have approached to\nhim? Could any one of the children of Adam? They, with their parent, all\ndreaded the Divine presence. Could any one of the angels? They also stood\nin need of a head, by a connection with whom they might be confirmed in a\nperfect and unvarying adherence to their God. What, then, could be done?\nOur situation was truly deplorable, unless the Divine majesty itself would\ndescend to us; for we could not ascend to it. Thus it was necessary that\nthe Son of God should become Immanuel, that is, God with us; and this in\norder that there might be a mutual union and coalition between his\nDivinity and the nature of man; for otherwise the proximity could not be\nsufficiently near, nor could the affinity be sufficiently strong, to\nauthorize us to hope that God would dwell with us. So great was the\ndiscordance between our pollution and the perfect purity of God. Although\nman had remained immaculately innocent, yet his condition would have been\ntoo mean for him to approach to God without a Mediator. What, then, can he\ndo, after having been plunged by his fatal fall into death and hell,\ndefiled with so many blemishes, putrefying in his own corruption, and, in\na word, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without reason, therefore,\nthat Paul, when about to exhibit Christ in the character of a Mediator,\nexpressly speaks of him as a man. \u201cThere is one Mediator,\u201d he says,\n\u201cbetween God and man, the man Christ Jesus.\u201d(1099) He might have called\nhim God, or might indeed have omitted the appellation of man, as well as\nthat of God; but because the Spirit, who spake by him, knew our infirmity,\nhe has provided a very suitable remedy against it, by placing the Son of\nGod familiarly among us, as though he were one of us. Therefore, that no\none may distress himself where he is to seek the Mediator, or in what way\nhe may approach him, the apostle, by denominating him a man, apprizes us\nthat he is near, and even close to us, since he is our own flesh. He\ncertainly intends the same as is stated in another place more at\nlarge\u2014\u201cthat we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the\nfeeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are,\nyet without sin.\u201d(1100)\n\nII. This will still more fully appear, if we consider, that it was no mean\npart which the Mediator had to perform; namely, to restore us to the\nDivine favour, so as, of children of men, to make us children of God; of\nheirs of hell, to make us heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Who could\naccomplish this, unless the Son of God should become also the Son of man,\nand thus receive to himself what belongs to us, and transfer to us that\nwhich is his, and make that which is his by nature ours by grace?\nDepending, therefore, on this pledge, we have confidence that we are the\nchildren from God, because he, who is the Son of God by nature, has\nprovided himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from\nour bones,(1101) that he might be the same with us: he refused not to\nassume that which was peculiar to us, that we also might obtain that which\nhe had peculiar to him; and that so in common with us he might be both the\nSon of God and the Son of man. Hence arises that holy fraternity, which he\nmentions with his own mouth in the following words: \u201cI ascend unto my\nFather, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.\u201d(1102) On this\naccount we have a certainty of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven,\nbecause the only Son of God, to whom it exclusively belonged, has adopted\nus as his brethren; and if we are his brethren, we are consequently co\u2010\nheirs to the inheritance.(1103) Moreover it was highly necessary also for\nthis reason, that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly both God\nand man. It was his office to swallow up death; who could do this, but he\nwho was life itself? It was his to overcome sin; who could accomplish\nthis, but righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of\nthe world and of the air; who could do this, but a power superior both to\nthe world and to the air? Now, who possesses life or righteousness, or the\nempire and power of heaven, but God alone? Therefore the most merciful\nGod, when he determined on our redemption, became himself our Redeemer in\nthe person of his only begotten Son!\n\nIII. Another branch of our reconciliation with God was this\u2014that man, who\nhad ruined himself by his own disobedience, should remedy his condition by\nobedience, should satisfy the justice of God, and suffer the punishment of\nhis sin. Our Lord then made his appearance as a real man; he put on the\ncharacter of Adam, and assumed his name, to act as his substitute in his\nobedience to the Father, to lay down our flesh as the price of\nsatisfaction to the justice of God; and to suffer the punishment which we\nhad deserved, in the same nature in which the offence had been committed.\nAs it would have been impossible, therefore, for one who was only God to\nsuffer death, or for one who was a mere man to overcome it, he associated\nthe human nature with the Divine, that he might submit the weakness of the\nformer to death, as an atonement for sins; and that with the power of the\nlatter he might contend with death, and obtain a victory on our behalf.\nThose who despoil Christ, therefore, either of his Divinity or his\nhumanity, either diminish his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness.\nNor are they, on the other hand, less injurious to men, whose faith they\nweaken and subvert; since it cannot stand any longer than it rests upon\nthis foundation. Moreover, the Redeemer to be expected was that Son of\nAbraham and David, whom God had promised in the law and the prophets.\nHence the minds of the faithful derive another advantage, because from the\ncircumstance of his ancestry being traced to David and to Abraham, they\nhave an additional assurance that this is the Christ, who was celebrated\nin so many prophecies. But we should particularly remember, what I have\njust stated\u2014that our common nature is a pledge of our fellowship with the\nSon of God; that, clothed in our flesh, he vanquished sin and death, in\norder that the victory and triumph might be ours; that the flesh which he\nreceived from us he offered up as a sacrifice, in order to expiate and\nobliterate our guilt, and appease the just wrath of the Father.\n\nIV. The persons who consider these things, with the diligent attention\nwhich they deserve, will easily disregard vague speculations which attract\nminds that are inconstant and fond of novelty. Such is the notion, that\nChrist would have become man, even though the human race had needed no\nredemption. I grant, indeed, that at the original creation, and in the\nstate of integrity, he was exalted as head over angels and men; for which\nreason Paul calls him \u201cthe first\u2010born of every creature;\u201d(1104) but since\nthe whole Scriptures proclaim, that he was clothed in flesh in order to\nbecome a Redeemer, it argues excessive temerity to imagine another cause\nor another end for it. The end for which Christ was promised from the\nbeginning, is sufficiently known; it was to restore a fallen world, and to\nsuccour ruined men. Therefore under the law his image was exhibited in\nsacrifices, to inspire the faithful with a hope that God would be\npropitious to them, after he should be reconciled by the expiation of\ntheir sins. And as, in all ages, even before the promulgation of the law,\nthe Mediator was never promised without blood, we conclude that he was\ndestined by the eternal decree of God to purify the pollution of men;\nbecause the effusion of blood is an emblem of expiation. The prophets\nproclaimed and foretold him, as the future reconciler of God and men. As a\nsufficient specimen of all, we refer to that very celebrated testimony of\nIsaiah, where he predicts, that he should be smitten of God for the\ntransgressions of the people, that the chastisement of their peace might\nbe upon him; and that he should be a priest to offer up himself as a\nvictim; that by his stripes others should be healed; and that because all\nmen had gone astray, and been dispersed like sheep, it had pleased the\nLord to afflict him and to lay on him the iniquities of all.(1105) As we\nare informed that Christ is particularly appointed by God for the relief\nof miserable sinners, all who pass these bounds are guilty of indulging a\nfoolish curiosity. When he himself appeared in the world, he declared the\ndesign of his advent to be, to appease God and restore us from death to\nlife. The apostles testified the same. Thus John, before he informs us\nthat the Word was made flesh, mentions the defection of man.(1106) But our\nprincipal attention is due to Christ himself speaking of his own office.\nHe says, \u201cGod so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that\nwhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting\nlife.\u201d(1107) Again: \u201cThe hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall\nhear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.\u201d(1108) \u201cI\nam the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were\ndead, yet shall he live.\u201d(1109) Again: \u201cThe Son of man is come to save\nthat which was lost.\u201d(1110) Again: \u201cThey that be whole need not a\nphysician.\u201d(1111) There would be no end, if I meant to quote all the\npassages. The apostles with one consent call us back to this principle;\nfor certainly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his\npriesthood would have been lost, for a priest is appointed as a Mediator\nto intercede between God and men:(1112) he could not have been our\nrighteousness, because he was made a sacrifice for us, that God might not\nimpute sins to us.(1113) Finally, he would have been despoiled of all the\nnoble characters under which he is celebrated in the Scripture. This\nassertion of Paul would have no foundation: \u201cWhat the law could not do,\nGod, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,\ncondemned sin in the flesh.\u201d(1114) Nor would there be any truth in what he\nteaches in another place, that \u201cthe kindness and love of God our Saviour\ntowards man appeared\u201d(1115) in the gift of Christ as a Redeemer. To\nconclude, the Scripture no where assigns any other end, for which the Son\nof God should choose to become incarnate, and should also receive this\ncommand from the Father, than that he might be made a sacrifice to appease\nthe Father on our account. \u201cThus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ\nto suffer; and that repentance should be preached in his name.\u201d(1116)\n\u201cTherefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. This\ncommandment have I received of my Father.\u201d(1117) \u201cAs Moses lifted up the\nserpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted\nup.\u201d(1118) Again: \u201cFather, save me from this hour; but for this cause came\nI unto this hour.\u201d(1119) \u201cFather, glorify thy Son.\u201d(1120) Where he clearly\nassigns, as the end of his assumption of human nature, that it was to be\nan expiatory sacrifice for the abolition of sins. For the same reason,\nZacharias pronounces that he is come, according to the promise given to\nthe fathers, \u201cto give light to them that sit in the shadow of\ndeath.\u201d(1121) Let us remember that all these things are spoken of the Son\nof God, \u201cin whom,\u201d according to the testimony of Paul, \u201care hidden all the\ntreasures of wisdom and knowledge,\u201d(1122) and besides whom he glories in\nknowing nothing.(1123)\n\nV. If any one object, that it is not evinced by any of these things, that\nthe same Christ, who has redeemed men from condemnation, could not have\ntestified his love to them by assuming their nature, if they had remained\nin a state of integrity and safety,\u2014we briefly reply, that since the\nSpirit declares these two things, Christ\u2019s becoming our Redeemer, and his\nparticipation of the same nature, to have been connected by the eternal\ndecree of God, it is not right to make any further inquiry. For he who\nfeels an eager desire to know something more, not being content with the\nimmutable appointment of God, shows himself also not to be contented with\nthis Christ, who has been given to us as the price of our redemption. Paul\nnot only tells us the end of his mission, but ascending to the sublime\nmystery of predestination, very properly represses all the licentiousness\nand prurience of the human mind, by declaring, that \u201cthe Father hath\nchosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and predestinated\nus to the adoption of children according to the good pleasure of his will,\nand made us accepted in his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption\nthrough his blood.\u201d(1124) Here the fall of Adam is certainly not\npresupposed, as of anterior date; but we have a discovery of what was\ndecreed by God before all ages, when he determined to remedy the misery of\nmankind. If any adversary object again, that this design of God depended\non the fall of man, which he foresaw, it is abundantly sufficient for me,\nthat every man is proceeding with impious presumption to imagine to\nhimself a new Christ, whoever he be that permits himself to inquire, or\nwishes to know, concerning Christ, any more than God has predestinated in\nhis secret decree. And justly does Paul, after having been thus treating\nof the peculiar office of Christ, implore, on behalf of the Ephesians, the\nspirit of understanding, \u201cthat they may be able to comprehend what is the\nbreadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of\nChrist, which passeth knowledge;\u201d(1125) as though he would labour to\nsurround our minds with barriers, that wherever mention is made of Christ,\nthey may not decline in the smallest degree from the grace of\nreconciliation. Wherefore, since \u201cthis is\u201d testified by Paul to be \u201ca\nfaithful saying, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save\nsinners,\u201d(1126) I gladly acquiesce in it. And since the same apostle in\nanother place informs us, that \u201cthe grace, which is now made manifest by\nthe gospel, was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,\u201d(1127) I\nconclude that I ought to persevere in the same doctrine with constancy to\nthe end. This modesty is unreasonably censured by Osiander, who in the\npresent age has unhappily agitated this question, which a few persons had\nslightly touched before. He alleges a charge of presumption against those\nwho deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh, if Adam had\nnever fallen, because this tenet is contradicted by no testimony of\nScripture; as if Paul laid no restraint on such perverse curiosity, when,\nafter having spoken of the accomplishment of our redemption by Christ, he\nimmediately adds this injunction: \u201cAvoid foolish questions.\u201d(1128) The\nfrenzy of some, that have been desirous of appearing prodigiously acute,\nhas proceeded to such a length as to question whether the Son of God could\nassume the nature of an ass. This monstrous supposition, which all pious\npersons justly abhor and detest, Osiander excuses under this pretext, that\nit is nowhere in Scripture expressly condemned; as if, when Paul esteems\nnothing valuable or worthy of being known but Christ crucified, he would\nadmit an ass to be the author of salvation! Therefore he who in another\nplace declares that Christ was appointed by the eternal decree of the\nFather as \u201cthe head over all,\u201d(1129) would never acknowledge any other who\nhad not been appointed to the office of a Redeemer.\n\nVI. But the principle which he boasts is altogether frivolous. He\nmaintains that man was created in the image of God, because he was formed\nin the similitude of the future Messiah, that he might resemble him whom\nthe Father had already decreed to clothe with flesh. Whence he concludes\nthat if Adam had never fallen from his primitive integrity, Christ would\nnevertheless have become man. How nugatory and forced this is, all who\npossess a sound judgment readily perceive. But he supposes that he has\nbeen the first to discover wherein the Divine image consisted; namely,\nthat the glory of God not only shone in those eminent talents with which\nman was endued, but that God himself essentially resided in him. Now,\nthough I admit that Adam bore the Divine image, inasmuch as he was united\nto God, which is the true and consummate perfection of dignity, yet I\ncontend that the similitude of God is to be sought only in those\ncharacters of excellence, with which God distinguished Adam above the\nother creatures. And that Christ was even then the image of God, is\nuniversally allowed; and therefore whatever excellence was impressed on\nAdam proceeded from this circumstance, that he approached to the glory of\nhis Maker by means of his only begotten Son. Man, therefore, was made in\nthe image of God, and was designed to be a mirror to display the glory of\nhis Creator. He was exalted to this degree of honour by the favour of the\nonly begotten Son; but I add, that this Son was a common head to angels as\nwell as to men; so that the angels also were entitled to the same dignity\nwhich was conferred on man. And when we hear them called the \u201cchildren of\nGod,\u201d(1130) it would be unreasonable to deny that they have some\nresemblance to their Father. But if he designed his glory to be\nrepresented in angels as well as in men, and to be equally conspicuous in\nthe angelic as in the human nature, Osiander betrays his ignorance and\nfolly in saying that men were preferred to angels, because the latter did\nnot bear the image of Christ. For they could not constantly enjoy the\npresent contemplation of God, unless they were like him. And Paul teaches\nus that men are no otherwise renewed after the image of God, than that if\nthey be associated with angels, they may be united together under one\nhead.(1131) Finally, if we give credit to Christ, our ultimate felicity,\nwhen we shall be received into heaven, will consist in being conformed to\nthe angels. But if Osiander may infer, that the primary exemplar of the\nDivine image was taken from the human nature of Christ, with the same\njustice may any other person contend, that Christ must have been a\npartaker of the nature of angels, because they likewise possess the image\nof God.\n\nVII. Osiander, then, has no reason to fear, that God might possibly be\nproved a liar, unless the decree concerning the incarnation of his Son had\nbeen previously and immutably fixed in his mind. Because, though Adam had\nnot fallen from his integrity, yet he would have resembled God just as the\nangels do; and yet it would not have been necessary on that account for\nthe Son of God to become either a man or an angel. Nor has he any cause to\nfear this absurdity, that if God had not immutably decreed, before the\ncreation of man, that Christ should be born, not as a Redeemer, but as the\nfirst man, he might lose his prerogative; whereas now he would not have\nbecome incarnate but for an accidental cause, that is, to restore mankind\nfrom ruin; so that he might thence infer, that Christ was created after\nthe image of Adam. For why should he dread, what the Scripture so plainly\nteaches, that he was made like us in all things, sin excepted?(1132)\nwhence also Luke hesitates not in his genealogy to call him \u201cthe son of\nAdam.\u201d(1133) I would also wish to know why Paul styles Christ \u201cthe second\nAdam,\u201d(1134) but because he was destined to become man, in order to\nextricate the posterity of Adam from ruin. If he sustained that capacity\nbefore the creation, he ought to have been called \u201cthe first Adam.\u201d\nOsiander boldly affirms, that because Christ was already foreknown as man\nin the Divine mind, therefore men were formed in his likeness. But Paul,\nby denominating him \u201cthe second Adam,\u201d places the fall, whence arises the\nnecessity of restoring our nature to its primitive condition, in an\nintermediate point between the first original of mankind and the\nrestitution which we obtain through Christ; whence it follows that the\nfall was the cause of the incarnation of the Son of God. Now, Osiander\nargues unreasonably and impertinently, that while Adam retained his\nintegrity, he would be the image of himself, and not of Christ. On the\ncontrary, I reply, that although the Son of God had never been incarnate,\nboth the body and the soul of man would equally have displayed the image\nof God; in whose radiance it always appeared, that Christ was truly the\nhead, possessing the supremacy over all. And thus we destroy that futile\nsubtilty raised by Osiander, that the angels would have been destitute of\nthis head, unless God had decreed to clothe his Son with flesh, even\nwithout any transgression of Adam. For he too inconsiderately takes for\ngranted, what no wise man will concede, that Christ has no supremacy over\nangels, and that he is not their Prince, except in his human nature. But\nwe may easily conclude, from the language of Paul, that, as the eternal\nWord of God, he is \u201cthe first\u2010born of every creature;\u201d(1135) not that he\nwas created, or ought to be numbered among creatures, but because the holy\nstate of the world, adorned as it was at the beginning with consummate\nbeauty, had no other author; and that afterwards, as man, he was \u201cthe\nfirst begotten from the dead.\u201d For in one short passage he proposes to our\nconsideration both these points\u2014that all things were created by the Son,\nthat he might have dominion over angels; and that he was made man, that he\nmight become our Redeemer.(1136) Another proof of Osiander\u2019s ignorance is\nhis assertion, that men would not have had Christ for their King, if he\nhad not been incarnate; as though the kingdom of God could not subsist, if\nthe eternal Son of God, without being invested with humanity, uniting\nangels and men in the participation of his glorious life, had himself held\nthe supreme dominion! But he is always deceived, or rather bewilders\nhimself, in this false principle, that the Church would have been\ndestitute of a head, if Christ had not been manifested in the flesh; as\nif, while he was head over angels, he could not likewise by his Divine\npower preside over men, and by the secret energy of his Spirit animate and\nsupport them, like his own body, till they should be exalted to heaven,\nand enjoy the life of angels! These impertinencies, which I have thus far\nrefuted, Osiander esteems as incontrovertible oracles. Inebriated by the\ncharms of his own speculations, he is accustomed to express himself in the\nlanguage of ridiculous triumph, without any sufficient cause. But he\nquotes one passage more, which he asserts to be conclusive beyond all the\nrest; that is, the prophecy of Adam, who, when he saw his wife, said,\n\u201cThis is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.\u201d(1137) But how does\nhe prove this to be a prophecy? Because Christ, according to Matthew,\nattributes the same language to God; as though every thing that God has\nspoken by men contained some prophecy! Then Osiander may seek for\nprophecies in each of the precepts of the law, of which it is evident God\nwas the author. Besides, Christ would have been a low and grovelling\nexpositor, if he had confined himself to the literal sense. Because he is\ntreating, not of the mystical union, with which he has honoured his\nChurch, but only of conjugal fidelity; he informs us, that God had\npronounced a husband and wife to be one flesh, that no one might attempt\nby a divorce to violate that indissoluble bond. If Osiander be displeased\nwith this simplicity, let him censure Christ, because he did not conduct\nhis disciples to a mystery, by a more subtile interpretation of the\nlanguage of the Father. Nor does his delirious imagination obtain any\nsupport from Paul, who, after having said that \u201cwe are members of Christ\u2019s\nflesh,\u201d immediately adds, \u201cthis is a great mystery.\u201d(1138) For the\napostle\u2019s design was, not to explain the sense in which Adam spoke, but,\nunder the figure and similitude of marriage, to display the sacred union\nwhich makes us one with Christ. And this is implied in his very words; for\nwhen he apprizes us that he is speaking of Christ and the Church, he\nintroduces a kind of correction to distinguish between the law of marriage\nand the spiritual union of Christ and the Church. Wherefore this futile\nnotion appears destitute of any solid foundation. Nor do I think there\nwill be any necessity for me to discuss similar subtilties; since the\nvanity of them all will be discovered from the foregoing very brief\nrefutation. But this sober declaration will be amply sufficient for the\nsolid satisfaction of the children of God; that \u201cwhen the fulness of the\ntime was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the\nlaw, to redeem them that were under the law.\u201d(1139)\n\n\n\n\nChapter XIII. Christ\u2019s Assumption Of Real Humanity.\n\n\nThe arguments for the Divinity of Christ, which has already been proved by\nclear and irrefragable testimonies, it would, I conceive, be unnecessary\nto reiterate. It remains, then, for us to examine, how, after having been\ninvested with our flesh, he has performed the office of a Mediator. Now,\nthe reality of his humanity was anciently opposed by the Manich\u00e6ans and by\nthe Marcionites. Of whom the latter imagined to themselves a visionary\nphantom instead of the body of Christ; and the former dreamed that he had\na celestial body. But both these notions are contrary to numerous and\npowerful testimonies of Scripture. For the blessing is promised, neither\nin a heavenly seed, nor in a phantom of a man, but in the seed of Abraham\nand Jacob; nor is the eternal throne promised to an a\u00ebrial man, but to the\nSon of David and the fruit of his loins.(1140) Wherefore, on his\nmanifestation in the flesh, he is called the Son of David and of Abraham,\nnot because he was merely born of the virgin after having been formed of\nsome a\u00ebrial substance; but because, according to Paul, he was \u201cmade of the\nseed of David according to the flesh;\u201d as the same apostle in another\nplace informs us, that \u201caccording to the flesh\u201d he descended from the\nJews.(1141) Wherefore the Lord himself, not content with the appellation\nof _man_, frequently calls himself also _the Son of Man_\u2014a term which he\nintended as a more express declaration of his real humanity. As the Holy\nSpirit has on so many occasions, by so many instruments, and with such\ngreat diligence and simplicity, declared a fact by no means abstruse in\nitself, who could have supposed that any mortals would have such\nconsummate impudence as to dare to obscure it with subtilties? But more\ntestimonies offer themselves, if we wished to multiply them; such as this\nof Paul, that \u201cGod sent forth his Son made of a woman;\u201d(1142) and\ninnumerable others, from which he appears to have been liable to hunger,\nthirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. But from the multitude\nwe must chiefly select those, which may conduce to the edification of our\nminds in true faith; as when it is said, that \u201che took not on him the\nnature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham;\u201d that he took\nflesh and blood, \u201cthat through death he might destroy him that had the\npower of death;\u201d for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren;\nthat \u201cin all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that\nhe might be a merciful and faithful high priest;\u201d that \u201cwe have not a high\npriest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;\u201d(1143)\nand the like. To the same purpose is what we have just before mentioned,\nthat it was necessary for the sins of the world to be expiated in our\nflesh; which is clearly asserted by Paul.(1144) And certainly all that the\nFather has conferred on Christ, belongs to us, because he \u201cis the head,\nfrom whom the whole body is fitly joined together, and compacted by that\nwhich every joint supplieth.\u201d(1145) There will otherwise be no propriety\nin the declaration, \u201cthat God giveth the Spirit not by measure unto him,\nthat we may all receive of his fulness;\u201d(1146) since nothing would be more\nabsurd, than that God should be enriched in his essence by any\nadventitious gift. For this reason also Christ himself says in another\nplace, \u201cFor their sakes I sanctify myself.\u201d(1147)\n\nII. The passages which they adduce in confirmation of this error, they\nmost foolishly pervert; nor do their frivolous subtilties at all avail\nthem in their endeavours to obviate the arguments which I have advanced in\ndefence of our sentiments. Marcion imagines that Christ invested himself\nwith a phantom instead of a real body; because he is said to have been\n\u201cmade in the likeness of men,\u201d and to have been \u201cfound in fashion as a\nman.\u201d(1148) But in drawing this conclusion, he totally overlooks the scope\nof Paul in that passage. For his design is, not to describe the nature of\nthe body which Christ assumed, but to assert that whilst he might have\ndisplayed his Divinity, he manifested himself in the condition of an\nabject and despised man. For, to exhort us to humility by the example of\nChrist, he shows, that being God, he might have instantaneously made a\nconspicuous exhibition of his glory to the world; yet that he receded from\nhis right, and voluntarily debased himself, for that he assumed the form\nof a servant, and content with that humble station, suffered his Divinity\nto be hidden behind the veil of humanity. The subject of this statement,\nwithout doubt, is not the nature of Christ, but his conduct. From the\nwhole context also it is easy to infer, that Christ humbled himself by the\nassumption of a real human nature. For what is the meaning of this clause,\n\u201cthat he was found in fashion as a man,\u201d but that for a time his Divine\nglory was invisible, and nothing appeared but the human form, in a mean\nand abject condition? For otherwise there would be no foundation for this\nassertion of Peter, that he was \u201cput to death in the flesh, but quickened\nby the Spirit,\u201d(1149) if the Son of God had not been subject to the\ninfirmities of human nature. This is more plainly expressed by Paul, when\nhe says, that \u201che was crucified through weakness.\u201d(1150) The same is\nconfirmed by his exaltation, because he is positively asserted to have\nobtained a new glory after his humiliation; which could only be applicable\nto a real man composed of body and soul. Manich\u00e6us fabricates for Christ\nan a\u00ebrial body; because he is called \u201cthe second Adam, the Lord from\nheaven.\u201d(1151) But the apostle in that place is not speaking of a\ncelestial corporeal essence, but of a spiritual energy, which, being\ndiffused from Christ, raises us into life. That energy we have already\nseen that Peter and Paul distinguish from his body. The orthodox doctrine,\ntherefore, concerning the body of Christ, is firmly established by this\nvery passage. For unless Christ had the same corporeal nature with us,\nthere would be no force in the argument which Paul so vehemently urges,\nthat if Christ be risen from the dead, then we also shall rise; that if we\nrise not, neither is Christ risen.(1152) Of whatever cavils either the\nancient Manich\u00e6ans, or their modern disciples, endeavour to avail\nthemselves, they cannot succeed. Their nugatory pretence that Christ is\ncalled \u201cthe Son of man,\u201d because he was promised to men, is a vain\nsubterfuge; for it is evident that in the Hebrew idiom, _the Son of man_\nis a phrase expressive of a real man. And Christ undoubtedly retained the\nphraseology of his own language. There is no room for disputing what is\nmeant by _the sons of Adam_. And not to go any further, it will be fully\nsufficient to quote a passage in the eighth psalm which the apostles apply\nto Christ: \u201cWhat is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man,\nthat thou visitest him?\u201d This phrase expresses the true humanity of\nChrist; because, though he was not immediately begotten by a mortal\nfather, yet his descent was derived from Adam. Nor would there otherwise\nbe any truth in what we have just quoted, that Christ became a partaker of\nflesh and blood, that he might bring many sons to glory\u2014language which\nclearly styles him to be a partaker of the same common nature with us. In\nthe same sense the apostle says, that \u201cboth he that sanctifieth and they\nwho are sanctified are all of one.\u201d For the context proves that this\nrefers to a community of nature; because he immediately adds, \u201cfor which\ncause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.\u201d(1153) For if he had\nalready said that the faithful are of God, what reason could Jesus Christ\nhave to be ashamed of such great dignity? But because Christ, of his\ninfinite grace, associates himself with those who are vile and\ncontemptible, it is therefore said that he is not ashamed. It is a vain\nobjection which they make, that on this principle the impious will become\nthe brethren of Christ; because we know that the children of God are born,\nnot of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith; therefore a\ncommunity of nature alone is not sufficient to constitute a fraternal\nunion. But though it is only to the faithful that the apostle assigns the\nhonour of being one with Christ, yet it does not follow that unbelievers\nare not, according to the flesh, born of the same original; as, when we\nsay that Christ was made man, to make us children of God, this expression\nextends not to all men; because faith is the medium by which we are\nspiritually ingrafted into the body of Christ. They likewise raise a\nfoolish contention respecting the appellation of _first\u2010born_. They plead\nthat Christ ought to have been born at the beginning, immediately of Adam,\nin order \u201cthat he might be the first\u2010born among many brethren.\u201d(1154) But\nthe primogeniture attributed to him refers not to age, but to the degree\nof honour and the eminence of power which he enjoys. Nor is there any more\nplausibility in their notion, that Christ is said to have assumed the\nnature of man, and not of angels, because he received the human race into\nhis favour. For the apostle, to magnify the honour with which Christ has\nfavoured us, compares us with the angels, before whom in this respect we\nare preferred.(1155) And if the testimony of Moses be duly considered,\nwhere he says that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the\nserpent,(1156) it will decide the whole controversy. For that prediction\nrelates not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Because the\nvictory was to be gained for us by Christ, God pronounces, in general,\nthat the posterity of the woman should be superior to the devil. Whence it\nfollows, that Christ descended from the human race; because the design of\nGod, in that promise to Eve, was to comfort her with a good hope, that she\nmight not be overcome with sorrow.\n\nIII. Those passages, where Christ is called \u201cthe seed of Abraham,\u201d and\n\u201cthe fruit of the body of David,\u201d they with equal folly and wickedness\ninvolve in allegories. For if the word _seed_ had been used in an\nallegorical sense, Paul certainly would not have been silent respecting\nit, where, without any figure, he explicitly affirms, that there are not\nmany sons of Abraham who are Redeemers, but Christ alone.(1157) Equally\nunfounded is their notion, that Christ is called the Son of David in no\nother sense, but because he had been promised, and was at length\nmanifested in due time. For after Paul has declared him to have been \u201cmade\nof the seed of David,\u201d the immediate addition of this phrase, \u201caccording\nto the flesh,\u201d(1158) is certainly a designation of nature. Thus also in\nanother place he calls him \u201cGod blessed for ever,\u201d and distinctly states\nthat he descended from the Jews \u201cas concerning the flesh.\u201d(1159) Now, if\nhe was not really begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of\nthis expression, \u201cthe fruit of his loins?\u201d(1160) What becomes of this\npromise, \u201cOf the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?\u201d(1161) They\nlikewise trifle in a sophistical manner with the genealogy of Christ, as\nit is given by Matthew. For though he mentions the parents of Joseph, and\nnot of Mary, yet as he was treating of a thing then generally known, he\nthought it sufficient to show that Joseph descended from the seed of\nDavid, while there could be no doubt that Mary was of the same family. But\nLuke goes further, with a view to signify, that the salvation procured by\nChrist is common to all mankind; since Christ, the author of salvation, is\ndescended from Adam, the common parent of all. I grant, indeed, that from\nthe genealogy it cannot be inferred that Christ is the Son of David, any\notherwise than as he was born of the Virgin. But the modern Marcionites,\nto give a plausibility to their error, that Christ derived his body from\nnothing, contend that women have no generative semen; and thus they\nsubvert the elements of nature. But as this is not a theological question,\nand the arguments which they adduce are so futile that there will be no\ndifficulty in repelling them, I shall not meddle with points belonging to\nphilosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient for me to obviate\nthe objection which they allege from the Scripture, namely, that Aaron and\nJehoiada married wives of the tribe of Judah; and thus, if women contain\ngenerative semen, the distinction of tribes was confounded. But it is\nsufficiently known, that, for the purposes of political regulation, the\nposterity is always reckoned from the father; yet that the superiority of\nthe male sex forms no objection to the co\u00f6peration of the female semen in\nthe process of generation. This solution extends to all the genealogies.\nFrequently, when the Scripture exhibits a catalogue of names, it mentions\nnone but men; is it therefore to be concluded that women are nothing? Even\nchildren themselves know that women are comprehended under their husbands.\nFor this reason women are said to bear children to their husbands, because\nthe name of the family always remains with the males. Now, as it is a\nprivilege conceded to the superiority of the male sex, that children\nshould be accounted noble or ignoble, according to the condition of their\nfathers, so, on the other hand, it is held by the lawyers, that in a state\nof slavery the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Whence we\nmay infer, that the offspring is produced partly from the seed of the\nmother; and the common language of all nations implies that mothers have\nsome share in the generation of children. This is in harmony with the\nDivine law, which otherwise would have no ground for the prohibition of\nthe marriage of an uncle with his sister\u2019s daughter; because in that case\nthere would be no consanguinity. It would also be lawful for a man to\nmarry his uterine sister, provided she were begotten by another father.\nBut while I grant that a passive power is ascribed to women, I also\nmaintain that the same that is affirmed of men is indiscriminately\npredicated of them. Nor is Christ himself said to be \u201cmade\u201d by a woman,\nbut \u201cof a woman.\u201d(1162) Some of these persons, casting off all modesty,\nimpudently inquire, whether we choose to say that Christ was procreated\nfrom the menstrual seed of the Virgin. I will inquire, on the other hand,\nwhether he was not united with the blood of his mother; and this they must\nbe constrained to confess. It is properly inferred, therefore, from the\nlanguage of Matthew, that inasmuch as Christ was begotten of Mary,(1163)\nhe was procreated from her seed; as when Booz is said to have been\nbegotten of Rahab,(1164) it denotes a similar generation. Nor is it the\ndesign of Matthew here to describe the Virgin as a tube through which\nChrist passed, but to discriminate this miraculous conception from\nordinary generation, in that Jesus Christ was generated of the seed of\nDavid by means of a Virgin. In the same sense, and for the same reason\nthat Isaac is said to have been begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and\nJoseph of Jacob, so Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother.\nFor the evangelist has written the whole of his account upon this\nprinciple; and to prove that Christ descended from David, he has contented\nhimself with this one fact, that he was begotten of Mary. Whence it\nfollows, that he took for granted the consanguinity of Mary and Joseph.\n\nIV. The absurdities, with which these opponents wish to press us, are\nreplete with puerile cavils. They esteem it mean and dishonourable to\nChrist, that he should derive his descent from men; because he could not\nbe exempt from the universal law, which concludes all the posterity of\nAdam, without exception, under sin.(1165) But the antithesis, which we\nfind in Paul, easily solves this difficulty: \u201cAs by one man sin entered\ninto the world, and death by sin, even so by the righteousness of one, the\ngrace of God hath abounded.\u201d(1166) To this the following passage\ncorresponds: \u201cThe first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the\nLord from heaven.\u201d(1167) Therefore the same apostle, in another place, by\nteaching us that Christ was \u201csent in the likeness of sinful flesh\u201d(1168)\nto satisfy the law, expressly distinguishes him from the common condition\nof mankind; so that he is a real man, and yet free from all fault and\ncorruption. They betray their ignorance in arguing that, if Christ is\nperfectly immaculate, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret\noperation of the Spirit, then it follows that there is no impurity in the\nseed of women, but only in that of men. For we do not represent Christ as\nperfectly immaculate, merely because he was born of the seed of a woman\nunconnected with any man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so\nthat his generation was pure and holy, such as it would have been before\nthe fall of Adam. And it is a fixed maxim with us, that whenever the\nScripture mentions the purity of Christ, it relates to a real humanity;\nbecause to assert the purity of Deity would be quite unnecessary. The\nsanctification, also, of which he speaks in the seventeenth chapter of\nJohn,(1169) could have no reference to the Divine nature. Nor do we, as\nthey pretend, imagine two kinds of seed in Adam, notwithstanding Christ\nwas free from all contagion. For the generation of man is not naturally\nand originally impure and corrupt, but only accidentally so, in\nconsequence of the fall. Therefore we need not wonder, that Christ, who\nwas to restore our integrity, was exempted from the general corruption.\nBut what they urge on us as an absurdity, that if the Word of God was\nclothed with flesh, it was therefore confined within the narrow prison of\nan earthly body, is mere impudence; because, although the infinite essence\nof the Word is united in one person with the nature of man, yet we have no\nidea of its incarceration or confinement. For the Son of God miraculously\ndescended from heaven, yet in such a manner that he never left heaven; he\nchose to be miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin, to live on\nthe earth, and to be suspended on the cross; and yet he never ceased to\nfill the universe, in the same manner as from the beginning.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XIV. The Union Of The Two Natures Constituting The Person Of The\nMediator.\n\n\nWhen it is said that \u201cthe Word was made flesh,\u201d(1170) this is not to be\nunderstood as if the Word was transmuted into flesh, or blended with\nflesh. Choosing from the womb of the Virgin a temple for his residence, he\nwho was the Son of God, became also the Son of man, not by a confusion of\nsubstance, but by a unity of person. For we assert such a connection and\nunion of the Divinity with the humanity, that each nature retains its\nproperties entire, and yet both together constitute one Christ. If any\nthing among men can be found to resemble so great a mystery, man himself\nappears to furnish the most apposite similitude; being evidently composed\nof two substances, of which, however, neither is so confounded with the\nother, as not to retain its distinct nature. For the soul is not the body,\nnor is the body the soul. Wherefore that is predicated separately of the\nsoul, which cannot be at all applied to the body. On the contrary, that is\npredicated of the body, which is totally incompatible with the soul. And\nthat is predicated of the whole man, which cannot with propriety be\nunderstood either of the soul or of the body alone. Lastly, the properties\nof the soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to\nthe soul; yet he that is composed of these two parts is no more than one\nman. Such forms of expression signify that there is in man one person\ncomposed of two distinct parts; and that there are two different natures\nunited in him to constitute that one person. The Scriptures speak in a\nsimilar manner respecting Christ. They attribute to him, sometimes those\nthings which are applicable merely to his humanity; sometimes those things\nwhich belong peculiarly to his Divinity; and not unfrequently those things\nwhich comprehend both his natures, but are incompatible with either of\nthem alone. And this union of the two natures in Christ they so carefully\nmaintain, that they sometimes attribute to one what belongs to the other\u2014a\nmode of expression which the ancient writers called a communication of\nproperties.\n\nII. These things might be liable to objection, if the Scripture did not\nabound with passages, which prove that none of them is of human invention.\nWhat Christ asserted concerning himself, \u201cBefore Abraham was, I am,\u201d(1171)\nwas very inapplicable to his humanity. I am aware of the cavil with which\nerroneous spirits would corrupt this passage,\u2014that he was before all ages,\nbecause he was even then foreknown as the Redeemer, as well in the decree\nof the Father, as in the minds of the faithful. But as he clearly\ndistinguishes the day of his manifestation from his eternal essence, and\nprofessedly urges his antiquity, in proof of his possessing an authority\nin which he excels Abraham, there is no doubt that he challenges to\nhimself what is peculiar to the Deity. Paul asserts him to be \u201cthe first\u2010\nborn of every creature, that he is before all things, and that by him all\nthings consist:\u201d(1172) he declares himself, that he \u201chad a glory with the\nFather before the world was,\u201d(1173) and that he co\u00f6perates with the\nFather.(1174) These things are equally incompatible with humanity. It is\ncertain that these, and such as these, are peculiar attributes of\nDivinity. But when he is called the \u201cservant\u201d of the Father;(1175) when it\nis stated that he \u201cincreased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God\nand man;\u201d(1176) that he seeks not his own glory; that he knows not the\nlast day; that he speaks not of himself; that he does not his own will;\nthat he was seen and handled;(1177) all this belongs solely to his\nhumanity. For as he is God, he is incapable of any augmentation whatever;\nhe does all things for his own glory, and there is nothing concealed from\nhim; he does all things according to the decision of his own will, and is\ninvisible and intangible. And yet he ascribes these things not to his\nhuman nature separately, but to himself, as though they belonged to the\nperson of the Mediator. But the communication of properties is exemplified\nin the assertion of Paul that \u201cGod purchased the Church with his own\nblood,\u201d(1178) and that \u201cthe Lord of glory\u201d was \u201ccrucified.\u201d(1179) Also in\nwhat John says, that they had \u201chandled the Word of life.\u201d(1180) God has no\nblood; he is not capable of suffering, or of being touched with hands; but\nsince he, who was at once the true God and the man Christ Jesus, was\ncrucified and shed his blood for us, those things which were performed in\nhis human nature are improperly, yet not without reason, transferred to\nthe Divinity. There is a similar example of this, where John teaches us,\nthat \u201cGod laid down his life for us.\u201d(1181) There also the property of the\nhumanity is transferred to the other nature. Again, when Christ, while he\nstill lived on the earth, said, \u201cNo man hath ascended up to heaven, but he\nthat came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven:\u201d(1182)\nas man, and in the body which he had assumed, he certainly was not at that\ntime in heaven, but because he was both God and man, on account of the\nunion of both natures, he attributed to one what belonged to the other.\n\nIII. But the clearest of all the passages declarative of the true\nsubstance of Christ are those which comprehend both the natures together;\nsuch as abound in the Gospel of John. For it is not with exclusive\nreference to the Deity or the humanity, but respecting the complex person\ncomposed of both, that we find it there stated; that he has received of\nthe Father power to forgive sins, to raise up whom he will, to bestow\nrighteousness, holiness, and salvation; that he is appointed to be the\nJudge of the living and the dead, that he may receive the same honour as\nthe Father;(1183) finally, that he is \u201cthe light of the world,\u201d \u201cthe good\nshepherd,\u201d \u201cthe only door,\u201d \u201cthe true vine.\u201d(1184) For with such\nprerogatives was the Son of God invested at his manifestation in the\nflesh; which although he enjoyed with the Father before the creation of\nthe world, yet not in the same manner or on the same account; and which\ncould not be conferred on a mere man. In the same sense also it is\nreasonable to understand the declaration of Paul, that after the last\njudgment Christ \u201cshall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the\nFather.\u201d(1185) Now, the kingdom of the Son of God, which had no beginning,\nwill never have any end. But as he concealed himself under the meanness of\nthe flesh, and humbled himself by assuming the form of a servant, and laid\naside his external majesty in obedience to the Father,(1186) and after\nhaving undergone this humiliation, was at length crowned with glory and\nhonour, and exalted to supreme dominion,(1187) that before him \u201cevery knee\nshould bow;\u201d(1188) so he shall then surrender to the Father that name and\ncrown of glory, and all that he has received from the Father, \u201cthat God\nmay be all in all.\u201d(1189) For why has power and dominion been given to\nhim, but that the Father may rule us by his hand? In this sense he is also\nsaid to sit at the right hand of the Father. But this is only temporary,\ntill we can enjoy the immediate contemplation of the Deity. And here it is\nimpossible to excuse the error of the ancients, who, for want of\nsufficient attention to the person of the Mediator, obscure the genuine\nsense of almost all the doctrine which we have in the Gospel of John, and\ninvolve themselves in many difficulties. Let this maxim, then, serve us as\na key to the true sense, that those things which relate to the office of\nthe Mediator, are not spoken simply of his Divine or of his human nature.\nChrist therefore will reign, till he comes to judge the world, forasmuch\nas he connects us with the Father as far as is compatible with our\ninfirmity. But when we shall participate the glory of heaven, and see God\nas he is, then, having fulfilled the office of Mediator, he will cease to\nbe the ambassador of the Father, and will be content with that glory which\nhe enjoyed before the creation of the world. Nor is the title of Lord\npeculiarly applied to the person of Christ in any other respect, than as\nit marks an intermediate station between God and us. This is the meaning\nof that expression of Paul, \u201cOne God, of whom are all things; and one\nLord, by whom are all things;\u201d(1190) namely, to whom the Father has\ncommitted a temporary dominion, till we shall be admitted to the immediate\npresence of his Divine majesty; which will be so far from sustaining any\ndiminution by his surrender of the kingdom to the Father, that it will\nexhibit itself in far superior splendour. For then also God will cease to\nbe the head of Christ, because the Deity of Christ himself, which is still\ncovered with a veil, will shine forth in all its native effulgence.\n\nIV. And this observation, if the reader make a judicious application of\nit, will be of great use towards the solution of many difficulties. For it\nis surprising how much ignorant persons, and even some who are not\naltogether destitute of learning, are perplexed by such forms of\nexpression, as they find attributed to Christ, which are not exactly\nappropriate either to his Divinity or to his humanity. This is for want of\nconsidering that they are applicable to his complex person, consisting of\nGod and man, and to his office of Mediator. And indeed we may see the most\nbeautiful coherence between all these things, if they have only a sober\nexpositor, to examine such great mysteries with becoming reverence. But\nthese furious and frantic spirits throw every thing into confusion. They\nlay hold of the properties of his humanity, to destroy his Divinity; on\nthe other hand, they catch at the attributes of his Divinity, to destroy\nhis humanity; and by what is spoken of both natures united, but is\napplicable separately to neither, they attempt to destroy both. Now, what\nis this but to contend that Christ is not man, because he is God; that he\nis not God, because he is man; and that he is neither man nor God, because\nhe is at once both man and God? We conclude, therefore, that Christ, as he\nis God and man, composed of these two natures united, yet not confounded,\nis our Lord and the true Son of God, even in his humanity; though not on\naccount of his humanity. For we ought carefully to avoid the error of\nNestorius, who, attempting rather to divide than to distinguish the two\nnatures, thereby imagined a double Christ. This we find clearly\ncontradicted by the Scripture, where the appellation of \u201cthe Son of God\u201d\nis given to him who was born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is\ncalled \u201cthe mother of our Lord.\u201d(1191) We must also beware of the error of\nEutyches, lest while we aim to establish the unity of Christ\u2019s person, we\ndestroy the distinction of his two natures. For we have already cited so\nmany testimonies, where his Divinity is distinguished from his humanity,\nand the Scripture abounds with so many others, that they may silence even\nthe most contentious. I shall shortly subjoin some, in order to a more\ncomplete refutation of that notion. At present one passage shall suffice\nus; for Christ would not have styled his body \u201ca temple,\u201d(1192) if it had\nnot been the residence of the Divinity, and at the same time distinct from\nit. Wherefore, as Nestorius was justly condemned in the council of\nEphesus, so also was Eutyches afterwards in the councils of Constantinople\nand Chalcedon; for to confound the two natures in Christ, and to separate\nthem, are equally wrong.\n\nV. But in our time also there has arisen a heretic equally pestilent,\nMichael Servetus, who in the place of the Son of God has substituted an\nimaginary being composed of the essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three\nuncreated elements. In the first place, he denies Christ to be the Son of\nGod, in any other respect than as he was begotten by the Holy Spirit in\nthe womb of the Virgin. But his subtlety tends to subvert the distinction\nof the two natures, and thereby to represent Christ as something composed\nof God and man, and yet neither God nor man. For this is the principal\npoint which he constantly endeavours to establish, that before Christ was\nmanifested in the flesh, there were in God only some shadowy figures; the\ntruth or effect of which had no real existence till the Word, who had been\ndestined to this honour, actually began to be the Son of God. Now, we\nconfess that the Mediator, who was born of the Virgin, is properly the Son\nof God. Nor indeed could the man Christ be a mirror of the inestimable\ngrace of God, if this dignity had not been conferred on him, to be, and to\nbe called, \u201cthe only begotten Son of God.\u201d The doctrine of the Church,\nhowever, remains unshaken, that he is accounted the Son of God, because,\nbeing the Word begotten by the Father before all ages, he assumed the\nhuman nature in a hypostatical union. By the \u201chypostatical union\u201d the\nancients expressed the combination of two natures constituting one person.\nIt was invented to refute the error of Nestorius, who imagined the Son of\nGod to have dwelt in flesh in such a manner as, notwithstanding that, to\nhave had no real humanity. Servetus falsely accuses us of making two Sons\nof God, when we say that the eternal Word was the Son of God, before he\nwas clothed with flesh; as though we affirmed any other than that he was\nmanifested in the flesh. For if he was God before he became man, it is not\nto be inferred that he began to be a new God. There is no more absurdity\nin affirming that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, who nevertheless\nwas always the Son of God by eternal generation. This is implied in the\nwords of the angel to Mary: \u201cThat holy thing which shall be born of thee\nshall be called the Son of God;\u201d(1193) as though he had said, that the\nname of the Son, which had been in obscurity under the law, was about to\nbe celebrated and universally known. Consistent with this is the\nrepresentation of Paul; that through Christ we are the sons of God, and\nmay freely and confidently cry, Abba, Father.(1194) But were not the holy\npatriarchs in ancient times numbered among the children of God? Yes; and\ndepending on this claim, they invoked God as their Father. But because,\nsince the introduction of the only begotten Son of God into the world, the\ncelestial paternity has been more clearly revealed, Paul mentions this as\nthe privilege of the kingdom of Christ. It must, however, be steadily\nmaintained, that God never was a Father, either to angels or to men, but\nwith reference to his only begotten Son; and especially that men, whom\ntheir own iniquity renders odious to God, are his sons by gratuitous\nadoption, because Christ is his Son by nature. Nor is there any force in\nthe cavil of Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God has\ndecreed in himself; because we are not here treating of figures, as\nexpiation was represented by the blood of the sacrifices: but as they\ncould not be the sons of God in reality, unless their adoption were\nfounded on this head, it is unreasonable to detract from the head, that\nwhich is common to all the members. I go further: since the Scripture\ncalls angels \u201cthe children of God,\u201d(1195) whose enjoyment of such high\ndignity depended not on the future redemption, yet it is necessary that\nChrist should precede them in order, seeing it is by him that they are\nconnected with the Father. I will briefly repeat this observation, and\napply the same to the human race. Since angels and men were originally\ncreated in such a condition, that God was the common Father of both, if\nthere be any truth in the assertion of Paul, \u201cthat Christ was before all\nthings, the head of the body, and the first\u2010born of every creature, that\nin all things he might have the pre\u00ebminence,\u201d(1196) I conceive I am right\nin concluding, that he was also the Son of God before the creation of the\nworld.\n\nVI. But if his filiation (so to speak) commenced at the time of his\nmanifestation in the flesh, it will follow that he was the Son also in\nrespect of his human nature. Servetus and other heretics maintain that\nChrist, who appeared in the flesh, was the Son of God; because out of the\nflesh he could not be entitled to this appellation. Now, let them answer\nme, whether he be the Son according to both natures, and in respect of\nboth. So indeed they idly pretend; but Paul teaches us very differently.\nWe confess that Christ is called \u201cthe Son\u201d in his human nature, not as the\nfaithful are, merely by adoption and grace, but the true and natural, and\ntherefore the only Son; that by this character he may be distinguished\nfrom all others. For we, who are regenerated to a new life, are honoured\nby God with the title of sons; but the appellation of \u201chis true and only\nbegotten Son\u201d he gives to Christ alone. But among such a multitude of\nbrethren, how can he be the only Son, unless he possess by nature what we\nhave received as a gift? And we extend this honour to the whole person of\nthe Mediator, that he who was born of the Virgin, and offered himself on\nthe cross as a victim to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God;\nbut nevertheless with respect to his Deity, as Paul suggests, when he says\nthat he was \u201cseparated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised\nafore, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the\nseed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God\nwith power.\u201d(1197) When he distinctly denominates him the Son of David\naccording to the flesh, why should he particularly say that he was\ndeclared to be the Son of God with power, unless he intended to suggest\nthat this dignity depended not on that flesh, but on something else? For\nin the same sense in which he says in another place that \u201che was crucified\nthrough weakness, yet that he liveth by the power of God,\u201d so in this\npassage he introduces the difference between the two natures. They\ncertainly must be constrained to admit, that as he has received of his\nmother that which causes him to be called the Son of David, so he has from\nhis Father that which constitutes him the Son of God, and that this is\nsomething distinct and different from his humanity. The Scripture\ndistinguishes him by two names, calling him sometimes \u201cthe Son of God,\u201d\nsometimes \u201cthe Son of man.\u201d With respect to the latter, it cannot be\ndisputed that he is styled the \u201cSon of man,\u201d in conformity to the common\nidiom of the Hebrew language, because he is one of the posterity of Adam.\nI contend, on the other hand, that he is denominated \u201cthe Son of God\u201d on\naccount of his Deity and eternal existence; because it is equally\nreasonable that the appellation of \u201cSon of God\u201d should be referred to the\nDivine nature, as that that of \u201cSon of man\u201d should be referred to the\nhuman nature. In short, in the passage which I have cited, \u201cthat he, who\nwas made of the seed of David according to the flesh, was declared to be\nthe Son of God with power,\u201d Paul intends the same as he teaches us in\nanother place, that \u201cChrist, who as concerning the flesh came of the Jews,\nis God blessed for ever.\u201d But if the distinction of the two natures be\nexpressed in both these passages, by what authority will they deny that he\nis the Son of God in respect of his Divine nature, who according to the\nflesh is likewise the Son of man?\n\nVII. They clamorously urge in support of their error that God is said \u201cnot\nto have spared his own Son,\u201d(1198) and that the angel directed that the\nvery same who was to be born of the Virgin, should be called \u201cthe Son of\nthe Highest.\u201d(1199) But to prevent their glorying in so futile an\nobjection, let them accompany us in a brief examination of the validity of\ntheir reasoning. For if it be rightly concluded, that he began to be the\nSon of God at his conception, because he that is conceived is called his\nSon, it will follow that he began to be the Word at his manifestation in\nthe flesh, because John tells us that \u201che declares that, which his hands\nhave handled, of the Word of life.\u201d(1200) So when they read the following\naddress of the prophet, \u201cThou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little\namong the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me\nthat is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old,\nfrom everlasting, or from the days of eternity,\u201d(1201) what interpretation\nwill they be obliged to adopt, if they determine to pursue such a mode of\nargumentation? For I have declared that we by no means coincide with\nNestorius, who imagined two Christs. According to our doctrine, Christ has\nmade us the sons of God, together with himself, by the privilege of a\nfraternal union, because he is, in our nature which he assumed, the only\nbegotten Son of God. And Augustine judiciously apprizes us, \u201cthat it is an\nillustrious mirror of the wonderful and singular grace of God, that Jesus\nChrist, considered as man, obtained honour which he could not merit.\u201d From\nhis very birth, therefore, was Christ adorned, even in his human nature,\nwith the dignity of being the Son of God. Yet in the unity of person we\nmust not imagine such a confusion, as to destroy that which is peculiar to\nDeity. For it is no more unreasonable, that the eternal Word of God and\nthe man Christ Jesus, the two natures being united into one person, should\nbe called the Son of God in different senses, than that he should be\nstyled, in various respects, sometimes the Son of God, sometimes the Son\nof man. Nor are we any more embarrassed with the other cavil of Servetus,\nthat before Christ appeared in the flesh, he is no where called the Son of\nGod, but in a figurative sense. For though the description of him then was\nrather obscure, yet since it has now been clearly proved, that he was the\neternal God no otherwise than as he was the Word begotten of the eternal\nFather, and that this name is applicable to him in the character of\nMediator which he has assumed, only because he is God manifested in the\nflesh; and that God the Father would not have been thus denominated from\nthe beginning, unless there had even then been a mutual relation to the\nSon, who is the source of all kindred or paternity in heaven and in\nearth;(1202) the inference is clear, that even under the law and the\nprophets he was the Son of God, before this name was commonly used in the\nChurch. If the contention be merely about the word, Solomon, in speaking\nof the infinite sublimity of God, affirms his Son to be incomprehensible\nas well as himself: \u201cWhat is his name,\u201d says he, \u201cand what is his Son\u2019s\nname, if thou canst tell?\u201d(1203) I am aware that this testimony will not\nhave sufficient weight with contentious persons, nor indeed do I lay much\nstress on it, only that it fixes the charge of a malicious cavil on those\nwho deny that Christ is the Son of God, any otherwise than because he has\nbecome man. It must also be remarked that all the most ancient writers\nhave with one accord so unequivocally asserted the same doctrine, that it\nargues impudence equally ridiculous and detestable in those who dare to\nrepresent us as opposing Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian, who both acknowledge that\nJesus Christ, who at length made a visible appearance, was always the\ninvisible Son of God.\n\nVIII. But although Servetus has accumulated many horrible and monstrous\nnotions, to which some of his brethren, perhaps, would refuse to\nsubscribe, yet, whoever they are that acknowledge not Christ to be the Son\nof God, except in the human nature, if we press them closely, we shall\nfind that this title is admitted by them on no other ground than because\nhe was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin; as the\nManich\u00e6ans formerly pretended that man received his soul by emanation from\nGod, because it is said that God breathed into Adam the breath of\nlife.(1204) For they lay such stress on the name of Son, that they leave\nno difference between the two natures, but tell us, in a confused manner,\nthat Christ is the Son of God, considered as man, because his human nature\nwas begotten by God. Thus the eternal generation of Wisdom, of which\nSolomon speaks,(1205) is destroyed, and no notice is taken of the Deity in\nthe Mediator, or a phantom is substituted instead of his humanity. It\nmight indeed be useful to refute the grosser fallacies of Servetus, with\nwhich he has fascinated himself and others, that the pious reader,\nadmonished by this example, may preserve himself within the bounds of\nsobriety and modesty; yet I conceive this will be unnecessary here, as I\nhave already done it in a separate treatise. The substance of them all is,\nthat the Son of God was from the beginning an ideal existence, and that\neven then he was predestinated to be a man who was to be the essential\nimage of God. Nor does he acknowledge any other word of God than what\nconsists in an external splendour. His generation he explains thus: that\nthere existed in God from the beginning a will to beget a Son, which was\ncarried into effect by his actual formation. He likewise confounds the\nSpirit with the Word, by asserting that God distributed the invisible Word\nand Spirit into body and soul. In short, he puts the prefiguration of\nChrist in the place of his generation; and affirms that he who was then in\nexternal appearance a shadowy Son, was at length begotten by the Word, to\nwhich he attributes the properties of seed. Whence it will follow, that\nthe meanest animals are equally the children of God, because they were\ncreated of the original seed of the Word of God. For though he compounds\nChrist of three uncreated elements, to countenance the assertion that he\nis begotten of the essence of God, yet he pretends him to have been the\nfirst\u2010born among creatures in such a sense, that even inanimate\nsubstances, according to their rank, possess the same essential Divinity.\nAnd that he may not seem to despoil Christ of his Deity, he asserts that\nhis flesh is co\u00ebssential with God, and that the Word was made flesh by a\nconversion of the humanity into Deity. Thus, while he cannot conceive\nChrist to be the Son of God, unless his flesh proceeded from the essence\nof God, and were reconverted into Deity, he annihilates the eternal\nhypostasis of the Word, and deprives us of the Son of David, the promised\nRedeemer. He frequently indeed repeats this, that the Son was begotten of\nGod by knowledge and predestination, but that at length he was made man of\nthose materials, which in the beginning appeared with God in the three\nelements, and which afterwards appeared in the first light of the world,\nin the cloud, and in the pillar of fire. Now, how shamefully he\ncontradicts himself, it would be too tedious to relate. From this summary\nthe judicious reader will conclude, that by the subtle fallacies of this\nheretic, the hope of salvation is completely extinguished. For if the body\nwere the Deity itself, it would no longer be the temple of it. Now, we can\nhave no Redeemer, except him who became man, by being really begotten of\nthe seed of Abraham and David according to the flesh. Servetus makes a\nvery improper use of the language of John, that \u201cthe word was made flesh;\u201d\nfor while it opposes the error of Nestorius, it is as far from affording\nthe least countenance to this impious notion, which originated with\nEutyches. The sole design of the evangelist was, to assert the union of\nthe two natures in one person.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XV. The Consideration Of Christ\u2019s Three Offices, Prophetical,\nRegal, And Sacerdotal, Necessary To Our Knowing The End Of His Mission\nFrom The Father, And The Benefits Which He Confers On Us.\n\n\nIt is a just observation of Augustine, that although heretics profess the\nname of Christ, yet he is not a foundation to them in common with the\npious, but remains exclusively the foundation of the Church; because, on a\ndiligent consideration of what belongs to Christ, Christ will be found\namong them only in name, not in reality. Thus the Papists in the present\nage, although the name of the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, be\nfrequently in their mouths, yet since they are contented with the mere\nname, and despoil him of his power and dignity, these words of Paul, \u201cnot\nholding the head,\u201d(1206) are truly applicable to them. Therefore, that\nfaith may find in Christ a solid ground of salvation, and so may rely on\nhim, it is proper for us to establish this principle, that the office\nwhich was assigned to him by the Father consists of three parts. For he\nwas given as a Prophet, a King, and a Priest; though we should derive but\nlittle benefit from an acquaintance with these names, unaccompanied with a\nknowledge of their end and use. For they are likewise pronounced among the\nPapists, but in a frigid and unprofitable manner, while they are ignorant\nof what is included in each of these titles. We have before observed, that\nalthough God sent prophets one after another in a continual succession,\nand never left his people destitute of useful instruction, such as was\nsufficient for salvation, yet the minds of the pious were always\npersuaded, that the full light of understanding was not to be expected\ntill the advent of the Messiah. And that this opinion had even reached the\nSamaritans, notwithstanding they had never been acquainted with the true\nreligion, appears from the speech of the woman: \u201cWhen Messias is come, he\nwill tell us all things.\u201d(1207) Nor had the Jews entertained this\nsentiment without sufficient ground, but believed as they had been taught\nby infallible oracles. One of the most remarkable is this passage of\nIsaiah: \u201cBehold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader\nand commander to the people;\u201d(1208) just as he had before styled him \u201cthe\nWonderful Counsellor.\u201d(1209) In the same manner the apostle, with a view\nto display the perfection of the evangelical doctrine, after having said,\nthat \u201cGod at sundry times and in divers manners spake unto the fathers by\nthe prophets,\u201d adds, that he \u201chath in these last days spoken unto us by\nhis Son.\u201d(1210) But because it was the office of all the prophets to keep\nthe Church in a state of suspense and expectation, and also to support it\ntill the advent of the Mediator, we therefore find the faithful\ncomplaining, in their dispersion, that they were deprived of this ordinary\nblessing: \u201cWe see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is\nthere among us any that knoweth how long.\u201d(1211) At length, when Christ\nwas at no great distance, a time was prefixed for Daniel to seal up the\nvision and prophecy, not only to authenticate the prediction it contained,\nbut in order that the faithful might patiently bear for a time the want of\nprophets, because the plenitude and conclusion of all revelations was near\nat hand.(1212)\n\nII. Now, it is to be observed, that the appellation of \u201cChrist\u201d belongs to\nthese three offices. For we know that under the law not only priests and\nkings, but prophets also, were anointed with holy oil. Hence the\ncelebrated title of \u201cMessiah\u201d was given to the promised Mediator. But\nthough I confess that he was called the Messiah with particular reference\nto his kingdom, as I have already shown, yet the prophetical and\nsacerdotal unctions have their respective places, and must not be\nneglected by us. The former is expressly mentioned by Isaiah in these\nwords: \u201cThe Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath\nanointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind\nup the broken\u2010hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, to proclaim\nthe acceptable year of the Lord.\u201d(1213) We see that he was anointed by the\nSpirit, to be a preacher and witness of the grace of the Father; and that\nnot in a common manner; for he is distinguished from other teachers, who\nheld a similar office. And here again it must be remarked, that he\nreceived this unction, not only for himself, that he might perform the\noffice of a teacher, but for his whole body, that the preaching of the\ngospel might continually be attended with the power of the Spirit. But it\nremains beyond all doubt, that by this perfection of doctrine which he has\nintroduced, he has put an end to all prophecies; so that they who, not\ncontented with the gospel, make any extraneous addition to it, are guilty\nof derogating from his authority. For that voice, which thundered from\nheaven, \u201cThis is my beloved Son; hear ye him,\u201d(1214) has exalted him by a\npeculiar privilege above all others. From the head this unction is\nafterwards diffused over the members, according to the prediction of Joel:\n\u201cYour sons and your daughters shall prophesy and see visions.\u201d(1215) But\nthe declarations of Paul, that \u201che is made unto us wisdom,\u201d(1216) and that\n\u201cin him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,\u201d(1217) have\nrather a different meaning; namely, that beside him there is nothing\nuseful to be known, and that they who by faith apprehend him as he is,\nhave embraced the whole infinitude of celestial blessings. For which\nreason he writes in another place, \u201cI determined not to know any thing\namong you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified;\u201d(1218) which is perfectly\njust, because it is unlawful to go beyond the simplicity of the gospel.\nAnd the tendency of the prophetic dignity in Christ is, to assure us that\nall the branches of perfect wisdom are included in the system of doctrine\nwhich he has given us.\n\nIII. I come now to his kingdom, of which it would be useless to speak,\nwithout first apprizing the reader, that it is of a spiritual nature;\nbecause thence we may gather what is its use, and what advantage it\nconfers upon us, and in short all its power and eternity. The eternity,\nwhich the angel in Daniel ascribes to the person of Christ, the angel in\nLuke justly applies to the salvation of the people. But this also is\ntwofold, or is to be considered in two points of view; one extending to\nthe whole body of the Church, the other belonging to every individual\nmember. To the former must be referred the following passage in the\nPsalms: \u201cOnce have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.\nHis seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It\nshall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in\nheaven.\u201d(1219) There is no doubt that God here promises to be the\neverlasting Governor and Defender of his Church, through the medium of his\nSon. For the truth of this prophecy will only be found in Christ; since\nimmediately after the death of Solomon, the dignity of the kingdom\nsustained a considerable degradation, the greater part of it, to the\ndisgrace of the family of David, being transferred to a private man, and\nafterwards was diminished more and more, till at length it fell in a\nmelancholy and total ruin. The same sentiment is conveyed in this\nexclamation of Isaiah: \u201cWho shall declare his generation?\u201d(1220) For when\nhe pronounces that Christ will survive after his death, he connects his\nmembers with him. Therefore, whenever we hear that Christ is armed with\neternal power, let us remember, that this is the bulwark which supports\nthe perpetuity of the Church; that amidst the turbulent agitations with\nwhich it is incessantly harassed, and amidst the painful and formidable\ncommotions which menace it with innumerable calamities, it may still be\npreserved in safety. Thus, when David derides the presumption of the\nenemies who attempt to break the yoke of God and of his Christ, and says,\nthat the kings and the people rage in vain, since he that dwelleth in the\nheavens is sufficiently powerful to repel their violence,\u2014he assures the\nfaithful of the perpetual preservation of the Church, and animates them to\nentertain a cheerful hope, whenever it happens to be oppressed.(1221) So,\nin another place, when, speaking in the name of God, he says, \u201cSit thou at\nmy right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool,\u201d(1222) he\napprizes us that though numerous and powerful enemies conspire to assault\nthe Church, yet they are not strong enough to prevail against that\nimmutable decree of God, by which he has constituted his Son an eternal\nKing. Whence it follows that it is impossible for the devil, with all the\nassistance of the world, ever to destroy the Church, which is founded on\nthe eternal throne of Christ. Now, with respect to its particular use to\neach individual, this same eternity ought to encourage our hope of a\nblessed immortality; for we see that whatever is terrestrial and worldly\nis temporary and perishable. Therefore, to raise our hope towards heaven,\nChrist declares that his \u201ckingdom is not of this world.\u201d(1223) In a word,\nwhenever we hear that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, excited by this\ndeclaration, we ought to penetrate to the hope of a better life, and as we\nare now protected by the power of Christ, let us expect the full benefit\nof this grace in the world to come.\n\nIV. The truth of our observation, that it is impossible to perceive the\nnature and advantages of the kingdom of Christ, unless we know it to be\nspiritual, is sufficiently evident from a consideration of the hardship\nand misery of our condition in the state of warfare under the cross, in\nwhich we have to continue as long as we live. What advantage, then, could\naccrue to us from being collected under the government of the heavenly\nKing, if the benefit of it were not to extend beyond the present state? It\nought therefore to be known, that whatever felicity is promised us in\nChrist, consists not in external accommodations, such as a life of joy and\ntranquillity, abundant wealth, security from every injury, and numerous\ndelights suited to our carnal desires, but that it is peculiar to the\nheavenly state. As in the world the prosperous and desirable state of a\nnation consists partly in domestic peace, and an abundance of all\nblessings, and every good, and partly in strong bulwarks to secure it from\nexternal violence, so Christ enriches his people with every thing\nnecessary to the eternal salvation of their souls, and arms them with\nstrength to enable them to stand invincible against all the assaults of\ntheir spiritual foes. Whence we infer that he reigns rather for us than\nfor himself, and that both internally and externally; that being\nreplenished, as far as God knows to be necessary for us, with the gifts of\nthe Spirit, of which we are naturally destitute, we may perceive from\nthese first\u2010fruits that we are truly united to God, in order to our\nperfect happiness; and in the next place, that, depending on the power of\nthe same Spirit, we may not doubt of being always victorious over the\ndevil, the world, and every kind of evil. This is implied in the answer of\nChrist to the Pharisees, that as \u201cthe kingdom of God is within\u201d us, it\n\u201ccometh not with observation.\u201d(1224) For it is probable, that in\nconsequence of his having professed himself to be that King, under whom\nthe highest blessing of God was to be expected, they ludicrously desired\nhim to display the insignia of his dignity. But to prevent them, who had\notherwise too great a propensity to the world, from directing all their\nattention to external pomp, he commands them to enter into their own\nconsciences, \u201cfor the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in\nthe Holy Ghost.\u201d(1225) Here we are briefly taught what advantage results\nto us from the kingdom of Christ. For since it is not terrestrial or\ncarnal, so as to be liable to corruption, but spiritual, it elevates us\neven to eternal life, that we may patiently pass through this life in\nafflictions, hunger, cold, contempt, reproaches, and other disagreeable\ncircumstances; contented with this single assurance, that our King will\nnever desert us, but will assist our necessities, till having completed\nthe term of our warfare, we shall be called to the triumph; for the rule\nof his government is, to communicate to us whatever he has received of the\nFather. Now, since he furnishes and arms us with his power, adorns us with\nhis beauty and magnificence, and enriches us with his wealth, hence we\nderive most abundant cause for glorying, and even confidence, to enable us\nto contend with intrepidity against the devil, sin, and death. In the last\nplace, since we are clothed with his righteousness, we may boldly rise\nsuperior to all the reproaches of the world; and as he liberally\nreplenishes us with his favours, so we ought on our part to bring forth\nfruit to his glory.\n\nV. His regal unction, therefore, is not represented to us as composed of\noil and aromatic perfumes; but he is called \u201cthe Christ of God,\u201d(1226)\nbecause \u201cthe spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and\nmight, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord,\u201d(1227) rested\nupon him. This is the \u201coil of gladness,\u201d with which the Psalmist declares\nhim to have been \u201canointed above\u201d his \u201cfellows;\u201d(1228) because, if he were\nnot possessed of such excellence, we should be all oppressed with poverty\nand famine. And, as we have observed, he was not enriched on his own\nprivate account, but that he might communicate his abundance to them who\nare hungry and thirsty. For as it is said that the Father \u201cgiveth not the\nSpirit by measure unto him,\u201d(1229) so another passage expresses the\nreason\u2014\u201cthat of his fulness we might all receive, and grace for\ngrace.\u201d(1230) From this source proceeds the munificence mentioned by Paul,\nby which grace is variously distributed to the faithful, \u201caccording to the\nmeasure of the gift of Christ.\u201d(1231) These passages abundantly confirm\nwhat I have said\u2014that the kingdom of Christ consists in the Spirit, not in\nterrestrial pleasures or pomps; and that, therefore, in order to be\npartakers of it, we must renounce the world. A visible emblem of this\nunction was displayed at the baptism of Christ, when the Holy Spirit\nrested on him in the form of a dove. That the Holy Spirit and his gifts\nare designated by the word unction, ought not to be esteemed either novel\nor absurd, because we have no other support even for our animal life; but\nespecially as it respects the heavenly life, we have not a particle of\nvigour in us, but what we have received from the Holy Spirit, who has\nchosen his residence in Christ, that those heavenly riches, which we so\ngreatly need, may from him be copiously distributed to us. Now, as the\nfaithful stand invincible in the strength of their King, and are enriched\nwith his spiritual blessings, they are justly denominated Christians. But\nto this eternity, of which we have spoken, there is nothing repugnant in\nthese expressions of Paul: \u201cThen he shall deliver up the kingdom to God,\neven the Father,\u201d and \u201cThen shall the Son himself be subject, that God may\nbe all in all.\u201d(1232) He only intends, that in that perfect glory the\nadministration of the kingdom will not be the same as it is at present.\nFor the Father has given all power to the Son, that he may guide, nourish,\nand sustain us by his hand, may guard us by his protection, and aid us in\nall our necessities. Thus, during the period of our pilgrimage, while we\nare absent from God, Christ interposes between us, to bring us by degrees\nto a perfect union with him. His being said to sit at the right hand of\nthe Father, is equivalent to his being called the Father\u2019s vicegerent,\nintrusted with all the power of the government; because it is the will of\nGod to govern and defend his Church through the mediation of his Son. This\nis the explanation given by Paul to the Ephesians, that he was \u201cset at the\nright hand of the Father, to be the head over all things to the Church,\nwhich is his body.\u201d(1233) To the same purpose is what he states in another\nplace, that there has been \u201cgiven him a name which is above every name;\nthat at the name of Jesus every knee should bow; and that every tongue\nshould confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the\nFather.\u201d(1234) For even in these words he displays the order in the\nkingdom of Christ necessary for our present infirmity. Thus Paul rightly\nconcludes, that God himself will then be the only head of the Church,\nbecause the functions of Christ in the preservation and salvation of the\nChurch will be fully discharged. For the same reason the Scripture often\nstyles him Lord, because the Father has given him authority over us, that\nhe may exercise his own dominion by the agency of his Son. \u201cFor though\nthere be\u201d many authorities celebrated in the world, \u201cto us there is but\none God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord\nJesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,\u201d(1235) says Paul.\nWhence it may justly be concluded, that he is the same God, who by the\nmouth of Isaiah has asserted himself to be the King and Lawgiver of his\nChurch.(1236) For though he every where ascribes all the authority he\npossesses to the free gift of the Father, yet he only signifies that he\nreigns in the majesty and power of God; because he assumed the character\nof Mediator, in order to approach to us by descending from the bosom and\nincomprehensible glory of his Father. Wherefore it is the more reasonable\nthat we should all with one consent be ready to obey him, and with the\ngreatest alacrity conform all our services to his will. For as he combines\nthe offices of a King and a Shepherd towards the faithful who yield a\nvoluntary obedience, so, on the contrary, we are informed, that he bears\n\u201ca rod of iron\u201d to \u201cbreak\u201d all the stubborn and rebellious, and to \u201cdash\nthem in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel.\u201d(1237) It is likewise predicted\nthat \u201che shall judge among the heathen; he shall fill the places with the\ndead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.\u201d(1238) Of this\nthere are some instances to be seen in the present state, but the complete\naccomplishment of it will be at the last judgment, which may also with\npropriety be considered as the last act of his reign.\n\nVI. Concerning his priesthood, we have briefly to remark, that the end and\nuse of it is, that he may be a Mediator pure from every stain, and by his\nholiness may render us acceptable to God. But because the righteous curse\nprevents our access to him, and God in his character of Judge is offended\nwith us,\u2014in order that our Priest may appease the wrath of God, and\nprocure his favour for us, there is a necessity for the intervention of an\natonement. Wherefore, that Christ might perform this office, it was\nnecessary for him to appear with a sacrifice. For even under the law the\npriest was not permitted to enter the sanctuary without blood; that the\nfaithful might know, that notwithstanding the interposition of the Priest\nas an intercessor, yet it was impossible for God to be propitiated without\nthe expiation of sins. This subject the apostle discusses at large in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, from the seventh chapter almost to the end of the\ntenth. But the sum of the whole is this\u2014that the sacerdotal dignity\nbelongs exclusively to Christ, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he\nhas abolished our guilt, and made satisfaction for our sins. The vast\nimportance of this we are taught by that solemn oath which \u201cthe Lord hath\nsworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of\nMelchisedec.\u201d(1239) For there is no doubt that God intended to establish\nthat capital point, which he knew to be the principal hinge on which our\nsalvation turns. And as we have observed, there is no access to God,\neither for ourselves or our prayers, unless our Priest sanctify us by\ntaking away our sins, and obtain for us that grace from which we are\nexcluded by the pollution of our vices and crimes. Thus, we see, it is\nnecessary to begin with the death of Christ, in order to experience the\nefficacy and utility of his priesthood. Hence it follows, that he is an\neternal intercessor, and that it is by his intervention we obtain favour\nwith God. Hence proceeds not only confidence in prayer, but also\ntranquillity to the consciences of the faithful; while they recline in\nsafety on the paternal indulgence of God, and are certainly persuaded,\nthat he is pleased with whatever is consecrated to him through the\nMediator. Now, as under the law God commanded victims to be offered to him\nfrom the flock and the herd, a new and different method has been adopted\nin the case of Christ, that the sacrifice should be the same with the\npriest; because it was impossible to find any other adequate satisfaction\nfor sins, or any one worthy of so great an honour as to offer to God his\nonly begotten Son. Besides, Christ sustains the character of a Priest, not\nonly to render the Father favourable and propitious to us by an eternal\nlaw of reconciliation, but also to associate us with himself in so great\nan honour. For we, who are polluted in ourselves, being \u201cmade\npriests\u201d(1240) in him, offer ourselves and all our services to God, and\nenter boldly into the heavenly sanctuary, so that the sacrifices of\nprayers and praise, which proceed from us, are \u201cacceptable,\u201d and \u201ca sweet\u2010\nsmelling savour\u201d(1241) in the Divine presence. This is included in the\ndeclaration of Christ, \u201cFor their sakes I sanctify myself;\u201d(1242) for\nbeing arrayed in his holiness, he having dedicated us, together with\nhimself, to the Father, we, who are otherwise offensive in his sight,\nbecome acceptable to him, as pure, unpolluted, and holy. This is the\nmeaning of the \u201canointing of the Most Holy,\u201d(1243) which is mentioned in\nDaniel. For we must observe the contrast between this unction and that\nshadowy unction which was then in use; as though the angel had said, that\nthe shadows would be dissipated, and that there would be a real priesthood\nin the person of Christ. So much the more detestable is the invention of\nthose, who, not content with the priesthood of Christ, have presumed to\ntake upon themselves the office of sacrificing him; which is daily\nattempted among the Papists, where the mass is considered as an immolation\nof Christ.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XVI. Christ\u2019s Execution Of The Office Of A Redeemer To Procure Our\nSalvation. His Death, Resurrection, And Ascension To Heaven.\n\n\nAll that we have hitherto advanced concerning Christ is to be referred to\nthis point, that being condemned, dead, and ruined in ourselves, we should\nseek righteousness, deliverance, life, and salvation in him; as we are\ntaught by this remarkable declaration of Peter, that \u201cthere is none other\nname under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.\u201d(1244) The\nname of JESUS was given him, not rashly or by a fortuitous accident, or by\nthe will of men, but was brought from heaven by the angel, the herald of\nthe supreme decree, and also with this reason annexed to it: \u201cfor he shall\nsave his people from their sins;\u201d(1245) in which words may be remarked,\nwhat we have before hinted, that the office of a Redeemer was assigned to\nhim in order that he might be our Saviour. Nevertheless, the redemption\nwould be incomplete, if he did not by continual advances carry us forward\nto the ultimate end of salvation. Therefore, as soon as we deviate from\nhim, though but in the smallest degree, we gradually lose sight of\nsalvation, which resides entirely in him; so that those who are not\nsatisfied with him, voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace. And the\nfollowing observation of Bernard is worthy of recital: \u201cthat the name of\nJesus is not only light, but also food; that it is likewise oil, without\nwhich all the food of the soul is dry; that it is salt, unseasoned by\nwhich, whatever is presented to us is insipid; finally, that it is honey\nin the mouth, melody in the ear, joy in the heart, and medicine to the\nsoul; and that there are no charms in any discourse where his name is not\nheard.\u201d But here we ought diligently to examine how he has procured\nsalvation for us; that we may not only know him to be the author of it,\nbut, embracing those things which are sufficient for the establishment of\nour faith, may reject every thing capable of drawing us aside to the right\nhand or to the left. For since no man can descend into himself and\nseriously consider his own character, without perceiving that God is angry\nwith him and hostile to him, and consequently he must find himself under a\nnecessity of anxiously seeking some way to appease him, which can never be\ndone without a satisfaction,\u2014this is a case in which the strongest\nassurance is required. For sinners, till they be delivered from guilt, are\nalways subject to the wrath and malediction of God, who, being a righteous\nJudge, never suffers his law to be violated with impunity, but stands\nprepared to avenge it.\n\nII. Before we proceed any further, let us examine, by the way, how it\ncould be consistent, that God, who prevents us with his mercy, should be\nour enemy, till he was reconciled to us by Christ. For how could he have\ngiven us a special pledge of his love in his only begotten Son, if he had\nnot previously embraced us in his gratuitous favour? As there is some\nappearance of contradiction, therefore, in this representation, I shall\nsolve the difficulty. The Spirit speaks in the Scriptures nearly in this\nmanner\u2014That God was an enemy to men, till by the death of Christ they were\nrestored to his favour;(1246) that they were under the curse till their\niniquity was expiated by his sacrifice;(1247) that they were separated\nfrom God, till they were restored to union with him by the body of\nChrist.(1248) Such modes of expression are accommodated to our capacity,\nthat we may better understand how miserable and calamitous our condition\nis, out of Christ. For if it were not clearly expressed, that we are\nobnoxious to the wrath and vengeance of God, and to eternal death, we\nshould not so fully discover how miserable we must be without the Divine\nmercy, nor should we so highly estimate the blessing of deliverance. For\nexample; let any man be addressed in the following manner: \u201cIf, while you\nremained a sinner, God had hated you, and rejected you according to your\ndemerits, horrible destruction would have befallen you; but because he has\nvoluntarily, and of his own gratuitous kindness, retained you in his\nfavour, and not permitted you to be alienated from him, he has thus\ndelivered you from that danger;\u201d he will be affected, and will in some\nmeasure perceive how much he is indebted to the Divine mercy. But if, on\nthe contrary, he be told, what the Scripture teaches, \u201cthat he was\nalienated from God by sin, an heir of wrath, obnoxious to the punishment\nof eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a total stranger to\nthe Divine blessing, a slave to Satan, a captive under the yoke of sin,\nand, in a word, condemned to, and already involved in, a horrible\ndestruction; that in this situation, Christ interposed as an intercessor;\nthat he has taken upon himself and suffered the punishment which by the\nrighteous judgment of God impended over all sinners; that by his blood he\nhas expiated those crimes which render them odious to God; that by this\nexpiation God the Father has been satisfied and duly atoned; that by this\nintercessor his wrath has been appeased; that this is the foundation of\npeace between God and men; that this is the bond of his benevolence\ntowards them;\u201d will he not be the more affected by these things in\nproportion to the more correct and lively representation of the depth of\ncalamity from which he has been delivered? In short, since it is\nimpossible for the life which is presented by the mercy of God, to be\nembraced by our hearts with sufficient ardour, or received with becoming\ngratitude, unless we have been previously terrified and distressed with\nthe fear of the Divine wrath, and the horror of eternal death, we are\ninstructed by the sacred doctrine, that irrespective of Christ we may\ncontemplate God as in some measure incensed against us, and his hand armed\nfor our destruction, and that we may embrace his benevolence and paternal\nlove only in Christ.\n\nIII. Now, though this is expressed according to the weakness of our\ncapacity, yet it is strictly true. For God, who is the perfection of\nrighteousness, cannot love iniquity, which he beholds in us all. We all,\ntherefore, have in us that which deserves God\u2019s hatred. Wherefore, in\nrespect of our corrupt nature, and the succeeding depravity of our lives,\nwe are all really offensive to God, guilty in his sight, and born to the\ndamnation of hell. But because the Lord will not lose in us that which is\nhis own, he yet discovers something that his goodness may love. For\nnotwithstanding we are sinners through our own fault, yet we are still his\ncreatures; notwithstanding we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he\nhad created us for life. Thus, by a pure and gratuitous love towards us,\nhe is excited to receive us into favour. But if there is a perpetual and\nirreconcilable opposition between righteousness and iniquity, he cannot\nreceive us entirely, as long as we remain sinners. Therefore, to remove\nall occasion of enmity, and to reconcile us completely to himself, he\nabolishes all our guilt, by the expiation exhibited in the death of\nChrist, that we, who before were polluted and impure, may appear righteous\nand holy in his sight. The love of God the Father therefore precedes our\nreconciliation in Christ; or rather it is because he first loves, that he\nafterwards reconciles us to himself.(1249) But because, till Christ\nrelieves us by his death, we are not freed from that iniquity which\ndeserves the indignation of God, and is accursed and condemned in his\nsight; we have not a complete and solid union with God, before we are\nunited to him by Christ. And therefore, if we would assure ourselves that\nGod is pacified and propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and hearts on\nChrist alone, since it is by him only that we really obtain the non\u2010\nimputation of sins, the imputation of which is connected with the Divine\nwrath.\n\nIV. For this reason Paul says, that the love which God had for us before\nthe creation of the world, was founded on Christ.(1250) This doctrine is\nclear, and consistent with the Scripture, and admirably reconciles the\ndifferent passages, where it is said, that God manifested his love to us\nby the gift of his only begotten Son,(1251) and yet that he was our enemy\ntill he was reconciled by the death of Christ.(1252) But for a further\nconfirmation of it, to such as require the testimony of the ancient\nChurch, I will cite a passage from Augustine, which expressly maintains\nthe same. \u201cThe love of God,\u201d says he, \u201cis incomprehensible and immutable.\nFor he did not begin to love us when we were reconciled to him by the\nblood of his Son, but he loved us before the creation of the world, that\nwe might be his children, together with his only begotten Son, even before\nwe had any existence. Therefore our reconciliation by the death of Christ\nmust not be understood as if he reconciled us to God, that God might begin\nto love those whom he had before hated; but we are reconciled to him who\nalready loved us, but with whom we were at enmity on account of sin. And\nwhether my assertion be true, let the apostle attest. \u2018God,\u2019 says he,\n\u2018commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ\ndied for us.\u2019(1253) He loved us, therefore, even when we were in the\nexercise of enmity against him, and engaged in the practice of iniquity.\nWherefore, in a wonderful and Divine manner, he both hated and loved us at\nthe same time. He hated us, as being different from what he had made us;\nbut as our iniquity had not entirely destroyed his work in us, he could at\nthe same time in every one of us hate what we had done, and love what\nproceeded from himself.\u201d This is the language of Augustine.\n\nV. Now, in answer to the inquiry, how Christ, by the abolition of our\nsins, has destroyed the enmity between God and us, and procured a\nrighteousness to render him favourable and propitious to us, it may be\nreplied in general, that he accomplished it for us by the whole course of\nhis obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul. \u201cAs by one man\u2019s\ndisobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many\nbe made righteous.\u201d(1254) And indeed in another place he extends the cause\nof the pardon, which exempts us from the malediction of the law, to the\nwhole life of Christ. \u201cWhen the fulness of the time was come, God sent\nforth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that\nwere under the law.\u201d(1255) Thus he himself affirmed even his baptism to be\na branch of his righteousness, because he acted in obedience to the\ncommand of the Father.(1256) In short, from the time of his assuming the\ncharacter of a servant, he began to pay the price of our deliverance in\norder to redeem us. Yet more precisely to define the means of our\nsalvation, the Scripture ascribes this in a peculiar manner to the death\nof Christ. He himself announces, that he \u201cgives his life a ransom for\nmany.\u201d(1257) Paul teaches that \u201che died for our sins.\u201d(1258) John the\nBaptist exclaims, \u201cBehold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of\nthe world!\u201d(1259) Paul in another place declares, that we are \u201cjustified\nfreely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom\nGod hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.\u201d(1260)\nAlso that we are \u201cjustified by his blood,\u201d and \u201creconciled by his\ndeath.\u201d(1261) Again: \u201cHe hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;\nthat we might be made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1262) I shall not\nproceed with all the proofs, because the catalogue would be immense, and\nmany of them must hereafter be cited in their proper order. Wherefore, in\nwhat is called the Apostles\u2019 Creed, there is very properly an immediate\ntransition from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in\nwhich the sum of perfect salvation consists. Yet there is no exclusion of\nthe rest of the obedience which he performed in his life; as Paul\ncomprehends the whole of it, from the beginning to the end, when he says,\nthat \u201che made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a\nservant, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the\ncross.\u201d(1263) And indeed his voluntary submission is the principal\ncircumstance even in his death; because the sacrifice, unless freely\noffered, would have been unavailable to the acquisition of righteousness.\nTherefore our Lord, after having declared, \u201cI lay down my life for the\nsheep,\u201d expressly adds, \u201cNo man taketh it from me.\u201d(1264) In which sense\nIsaiah says, \u201cAs a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not\nhis mouth.\u201d(1265) And the evangelical history relates, that he went forth\nto meet the soldiers,(1266) and that before Pilate he neglected making any\ndefence, and waited to submit to the sentence.(1267) Nor was this without\ninward conflict, because he had taken our infirmities, and it was\nnecessary to give this proof of his obedience to his Father. And it was no\nmean specimen of his incomparable love to us, to contend with horrible\nfear, and amid those dreadful torments to neglect all care of himself,\nthat he might promote our benefit. Indeed we must admit, that it was\nimpossible for God to be truly appeased in any other way, than by Christ\nrenouncing all concern for himself, and submitting and devoting himself\nentirely to his will. On this subject the apostle appositely cites the\ntestimony of the Psalmist: \u201cThen said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the\nbook it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law\nis within my heart.\u201d(1268) But since terrified consciences find no rest\nbut in a sacrifice and ablution to expiate their sins, we are properly\ndirected thither, and the death of Christ is exhibited to us as the source\nof life. Now, because our guilt rendered us liable to a curse at the\nheavenly tribunal of God, the condemnation of Christ before Pontius\nPilate, the governor of Judea, is stated in the first place, that we may\nknow that on this righteous person was inflicted the punishment which\nbelonged to us. We could not escape the terrible judgment of God; to\ndeliver us from it, Christ submitted to be condemned even before a wicked\nand profane mortal. For the name of the governor is mentioned, not only to\nestablish the credit of the history, but that we may learn, what is taught\nby Isaiah, that \u201cthe chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his\nstripes we are healed.\u201d(1269) For to supersede our condemnation it was not\nsufficient for him to suffer any kind of death; but, to accomplish our\nredemption, that kind of death was to be chosen, by which, both sustaining\nour condemnation and atoning for our sins, he might deliver us from both.\nHad he been assassinated by robbers, or murdered in a popular tumult, in\nsuch a death there would have been no appearance of satisfaction. But when\nhe is placed as a criminal before the tribunal,\u2014when he is accused and\noverpowered by the testimony of witnesses, and by the mouth of the judge\nis condemned to die,\u2014we understand from these circumstances, that he\nsustained the character of a malefactor. And we shall remark two things\nwhich were foretold in the predictions of the prophets, and afford\npeculiar consolation and confirmation to our faith. For when we are told,\nthat Christ was sent from the tribunal of the judge to the place of\nexecution, and suspended between two thieves, we see the completion of\nthat prophecy, which is cited by the Evangelist, \u201cHe was numbered with the\ntransgressors.\u201d(1270) For what reason? to sustain the character of a\nsinner, not of a righteous or innocent person. For he died, not for his\ninnocence, but on account of sin. On the contrary, when we hear him\nabsolved by the same mouth by which he was condemned, (for Pilate was\nconstrained repeatedly to give a public testimony of his innocence,)(1271)\nlet it remind us of what we read in another prophet: \u201cI restored that\nwhich I took not away.\u201d(1272) Thus we shall behold Christ sustaining the\ncharacter of a sinner and malefactor, while from the lustre of his\ninnocence it will at the same time evidently appear, that he was loaded\nwith the guilt of others, but had none of his own. He suffered, then,\nunder Pontius Pilate, after having been condemned as a criminal by the\nsolemn sentence of the governor; yet not in such a manner, but that he was\nat the same time pronounced to be righteous, by the declaration of the\nsame judge, that he found in him no cause of accusation. This is our\nabsolution, that the guilt, which made us obnoxious to punishment, is\ntransferred to the person of the Son of God. For we ought particularly to\nremember this satisfaction, that we may not spend our whole lives in\nterror and anxiety, as though we were pursued by the righteous vengeance\nof God, which the Son of God has transferred to himself.\n\nVI. Moreover, the species of death which he suffered, is fraught with a\npeculiar mystery. The cross was accursed, not only in the opinion of men,\nbut by the decree of the Divine law. Therefore, when Christ is lifted up\nupon it, he renders himself obnoxious to the curse. And this was necessary\nto be done, that by this transfer we might be delivered from every curse\nwhich awaited us, or rather was already inflicted upon us, on account of\nour iniquities. This was also prefigured in the law. For the victims and\nexpiations offered for sins were called \u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea, a word which properly\nsignifies sin itself. By this appellation the Spirit intended to suggest\nthat they were vicarious sacrifices, to receive and sustain the curse due\nto sin. But that which was figuratively represented in the Mosaic\nsacrifices, is actually exhibited in Christ, the archetype of the figures.\nWherefore, in order to effect a complete expiation, he gave his soul \u05d0\u05e9\u05dd,\nthat is, _an atoning sacrifice for sin_,(1273) as the prophet says; so\nthat our guilt and punishment being as it were transferred to him, they\nmust cease to be imputed to us. The apostle more explicitly testifies the\nsame, when he says, \u201cHe hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;\nthat we might be made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1274) For the Son\nof God, though perfectly free from all sin, nevertheless assumed the\ndisgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and, on the other hand, arrayed\nus in his purity. He appears to have intended the same, when he says\nconcerning sin, that it was \u201ccondemned in the flesh,\u201d(1275) that is, in\nChrist. For the Father destroyed the power of sin, when the curse of it\nwas transferred to the body of Christ. This expression therefore\nindicates, that Christ at his death was offered to the Father as an\nexpiatory sacrifice, in order that, a complete atonement being made by his\noblation, we may no longer dread the Divine wrath. Now, it is evident what\nthe prophet meant, when he said, \u201cThe Lord hath laid on him the iniquity\nof us all;\u201d(1276) namely, that when he was about to expiate our sins, they\nwere transferred to him by imputation. The cross, to which he was fixed,\nwas a symbol of this, as the apostle informs us: \u201cChrist hath redeemed us\nfrom the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written,\nCursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; that the blessing of Abraham\nmight come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.\u201d(1277) Peter alluded to\nthe same, where he said, \u201cHe bare our sins in his own body on the\ntree;\u201d(1278) because from the visible symbol of the curse, we more clearly\napprehend, that the burden, with which we were oppressed, was imposed on\nhim. Nor must we conceive that he submitted to a curse which overwhelmed\nhim, but, on the contrary, that by sustaining it, he depressed, broke, and\ndestroyed all its power. Wherefore faith apprehends an absolution in the\ncondemnation of Christ, and a benediction in his curse. It is not without\nreason, therefore, that Paul magnificently proclaims the triumph which\nChrist gained for himself on the cross; as though the cross, which was\nfull of ignominy, had been converted into a triumphal chariot. For he\nsays, that \u201che nailed to his cross the hand\u2010writing, which was contrary to\nus, and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them\nopenly.\u201d(1279) Nor should this surprise us; for, according to the\ntestimony of another apostle, \u201cChrist offered himself through the eternal\nSpirit.\u201d(1280) Hence arose that change of the nature of things. But that\nthese things may be deeply rooted and firmly fixed in our hearts, let us\nalways remember his sacrifice and ablution. For we certainly could have no\nconfidence that Christ was our (\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,(1281) \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,(1282)\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,)(1283) redemption, ransom, and propitiation, if he had not\nbeen a slaughtered victim. And for this reason it is, that when the\nScripture exhibits the method of redemption, it so often makes mention of\nblood; though the blood shed by Christ has not only served as an atonement\nto God, but likewise as a laver to purge away our pollutions.\n\nVII. It follows in the Creed, \u201cthat he died and was buried;\u201d in which may\nbe further seen, how in every respect he substituted himself in our room\nto pay the price of our redemption. Death held us in bondage under his\nyoke; Christ, to deliver us from it, surrendered himself to his power in\nour stead. This is the meaning of the apostle, when he says, that \u201che\ntasted death for every man.\u201d(1284) For by his death he prevented us from\ndying, or, which comes to the same thing, by his death recovered life for\nus. But in this respect he differed from us\u2014he surrendered himself to\ndeath to be, as it were, overcome by it, not that he might be absorbed in\nits abysses, but rather that he might destroy that, by which we should\nhave been at length devoured; he surrendered himself to death to be\nsubdued, not that he might be overwhelmed by its power, but rather that he\nmight overthrow that which threatened us, which indeed had already\novercome us, and was triumphing over us. Lastly, he died, \u201cthat he might\ndestroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver\nthem who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to\nbondage.\u201d(1285) This is the first benefit we have received from his death.\nThe second is, that, by a communication of himself, he \u201cmortifies\u201d our\n\u201cmembers which are upon the earth,\u201d(1286) that they may no longer perform\ntheir own actions; and slays our old man, that it may not flourish and\nbear fruit any more. The burial of Christ has the same tendency, namely,\nthat being made partakers of it, we may be buried to sin. For when the\napostle teaches us that \u201cwe have been planted in the likeness of the death\nof Christ, and buried with him,\u201d(1287) to the death of sin; that \u201cby his\ncross the world is crucified\u201d unto us, and we \u201cunto the world;\u201d(1288) and\nthat we \u201care dead with him;\u201d(1289) he not only exhorts us to imitate the\nexample of his death, but declares that it contains such an efficacy, as\nought to be conspicuous in all Christians, unless they wish to render that\ndeath ineffectual and useless. In the death and burial of Christ,\ntherefore, we have a twofold benefit proposed to our enjoyment\u2014deliverance\nfrom the thraldom of death, and the mortification of our flesh.\n\nVIII. But it is not right to omit his \u201cdescent into hell,\u201d which is of no\nsmall importance towards the accomplishment of redemption. For though it\nappears from the writings of the ancients, that this article of the Creed\nwas not always in common use in the churches, yet in discussing a system\nof doctrine, it is necessary to introduce it, as containing a mystery\nhighly useful, and by no means to be despised. Indeed, there are some of\nthe ancients who do not omit it. Hence we may conjecture that it was\ninserted a little after the days of the apostles, and was not immediately\nbut gradually received in the churches. This at least cannot be\ncontroverted, that it was agreeable to the general opinion of all the\nfaithful; since there is not one of the fathers, who does not mention in\nhis writings the descent of Christ into hell, though they explain it in\ndifferent senses. But by whom, or at what period, it was first inserted,\nis of little consequence; it is of more importance that the Creed should\npresent us a full and complete summary of faith, into which nothing should\nbe inserted, but what is taken from God\u2019s most holy word. Yet if any\nmorosely refuse to admit it into the Creed, it shall presently be proved\nto be so necessary to the perfection of our redemption, that the omission\nof it considerably lessens the benefit of the death of Christ. Some,\nagain, are of opinion, that this clause contains nothing new, but is only\na repetition, in other words, of what had before been said respecting his\nburial; because the word here rendered \u201chell\u201d is frequently used in the\nScriptures to signify the grave. I admit the truth of their observation\nrespecting the signification of this word, that it is frequently to be\nunderstood of the \u201cgrave;\u201d but their opinion is opposed by two reasons,\nwhich easily induce me to dissent from them. For what extreme carelessness\nit would betray, after a plain fact had been stated in the most explicit\nand familiar manner, to assert it a second time in an obscure combination\nof words calculated rather to perplex than to elucidate it! For when two\nphrases expressive of the same thing are connected together, the latter\nought to be an explanation of the former. But what an explanation would\nthis be, if one were to express it thus: \u201cWhen Christ is said to have been\nburied, the meaning is, that he descended into hell!\u201d Besides, it is not\nprobable that such a superfluous tautology could have found its way into\nthis compendium, in which the principal articles of faith are summarily\nexpressed with the utmost possible brevity. And I doubt not, that all who\nhave considered this point with any attention will easily assent to what I\nhave advanced.\n\nIX. Others give a different interpretation; that Christ descended to the\nsouls of the fathers who had died under the law, for the purpose of\nannouncing the accomplishment of redemption, and liberating them from the\nprison in which they were confined. To this purpose they pervert a passage\nin the psalms, that \u201che hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars\nof iron in sunder;\u201d(1290) and another in Zechariah, \u201cI have sent forth thy\nprisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.\u201d(1291) But since the\nPsalmist celebrates the liberation of those who are suffering captivity\nand imprisonment in distant countries; and Zechariah compares the\ndestruction in which the people had been overwhelmed in Babylon, to a dry\npit or abyss; and at the same time suggests, that the salvation of the\nwhole Church is a deliverance from the abysses of hell; I know not how it\ncame to pass, that posterity should imagine a subterraneous cavern, to\nwhich they have given the name of Limbus. But this fable, although it is\nmaintained by great authors, and even in the present age is by many\nseriously defended as a truth, is after all nothing but a fable. For to\nconfine the souls of the dead in a prison, is quite puerile; but what\nnecessity was there for Christ to descend thither in order to liberate\nthem? I freely confess, indeed, that Christ illuminated them by the power\nof his Spirit; that they might know that the grace, which they had only\ntasted by hope, was then exhibited to the world. And probably to this we\nmay accommodate that passage of Peter, where he says, that Christ \u201cwent\nand preached unto the spirits who were keeping watch as in a tower.\u201d(1292)\nThis is generally rendered \u201cthe spirits in prison,\u201d but I conceive\nimproperly. The context also gives us to understand, that the faithful who\nhad died before that time, were partakers of the same grace with us. For\nthe apostle amplifies the efficacy of the death of Christ from this\nconsideration, that it penetrated even to the dead; when the souls of the\nfaithful enjoyed the present view of that visitation which they had been\nanxiously expecting; whilst, on the contrary, it was more clearly\ndiscovered to the reprobate, that they were excluded from all salvation.\nBut since Peter has not spoken in this distinct manner of the pious and\nthe impious, we must not understand him as confounding them all together,\nwithout any discrimination. He only designs to inform us, that the\nknowledge of the death of Christ was common to them both.\n\nX. But laying aside all consideration of the Creed, we have to seek for a\nmore certain explanation of the descent of Christ into hell; and we find\none in the Divine word, not only holy and pious, but likewise replete with\nsingular consolation. If Christ had merely died a corporeal death, no end\nwould have been accomplished by it; it was requisite, also, that he should\nfeel the severity of the Divine vengeance, in order to appease the wrath\nof God, and satisfy his justice. Hence it was necessary for him to contend\nwith the powers of hell and the horror of eternal death. We have already\nstated from the prophet, that \u201cthe chastisement of our peace was upon\nhim,\u201d that \u201che was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our\niniquities;\u201d(1293) the meaning of which is, that he was made a substitute\nand surety for transgressors, and even treated as a criminal himself, to\nsustain all the punishments which would have been inflicted on them; only\nwith this exception, that \u201cit was not possible that he should be holden of\nthe pains of death.\u201d(1294) Therefore it is no wonder, if he be said to\nhave descended into hell, since he suffered that death which the wrath of\nGod inflicts on transgressors. It is a very frivolous and even ridiculous\nobjection to say that by this explanation the order of things is\nperverted, because it is absurd to make that subsequent to his burial,\nwhich really preceded it. For the relation of those sufferings of Christ,\nwhich were visible to men, is very properly followed by that invisible and\nincomprehensible vengeance which he suffered from the hand of God; in\norder to assure us that not only the body of Christ was given as the price\nof our redemption, but that there was another greater and more excellent\nransom, since he suffered in his soul the dreadful torments of a person\ncondemned and irretrievably lost.\n\nXI. In this sense Peter says, that \u201cGod raised him up, having loosed the\npains of death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of\nit.\u201d(1295) He does not say simply \u201cdeath;\u201d but tells us, that the Son of\nGod was involved in \u201cthe pains of death,\u201d which proceed from the Divine\nwrath and malediction, which is the origin of death. For what a little\nthing it would have been for Christ to appear in order to suffer death,\nwithout any distress or perplexity, and even with pleasure! But this was a\ntrue specimen of his infinite mercy, not to evade that death which he so\nmuch dreaded. Nor can it be doubted, but the apostle means to suggest the\nsame in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says, that Christ \u201cwas heard\nin that he feared.\u201d(1296) Some, instead of fear, translate it reverence or\npiety; but how improperly, is evident from the subject itself, and also\nfrom the form of expression. Christ, therefore, \u201cwhen he offered up\nprayers with strong crying and tears, was heard in that he feared;\u201d not\nthat he might obtain an exemption from death, but that he might not be\nswallowed up by it as a sinner; for he was then sustaining our character.\nAnd it is certainly impossible to imagine any more formidable abyss, than\nto perceive ourselves forsaken and abandoned by God, and not to be heard\nwhen we call upon him, as though he had conspired to destroy us. Now, we\nsee Christ was so deeply dejected, that in the urgency of distress, he was\nconstrained to exclaim, \u201cMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d(1297)\nFor the idea of some, that he spoke rather according to the opinion of\nothers than from his own feelings, is utterly improbable; since he\nevidently appears to have spoken from the anguish of his inmost soul. We\ndo not admit that God was ever hostile to him, or angry with him. For how\ncould he be angry with his beloved Son, \u201cin whom his soul\ndelighted?\u201d(1298) or how could Christ, by his intercession, appease the\nFather for others, if the Father were incensed against him? But we affirm,\nthat he sustained the weight of the Divine severity; since, being \u201csmitten\nand afflicted of God,\u201d(1299) he experienced from God all the tokens of\nwrath and vengeance. Wherefore, Hilary argues, that by this descent we\nhave obtained the destruction of death. And in other places he accords\nwith our opinion; as when he says, \u201cThe cross, death, and hell, are our\nlife.\u201d Again, in another place, \u201cThe Son of God is in hell, but man is\nraised to heaven.\u201d But why do I cite the testimony of a private person,\nwhen the apostle asserts the same thing, mentioning, as the reward of\nChrist\u2019s victory, the deliverance of them \u201cwho, through fear of death,\nwere all their lifetime subject to bondage?\u201d(1300) It was necessary,\ntherefore, that he should overcome that fear, which naturally and\nincessantly harasses all men; which he could not do without contending\nwith it. Now, that his was not a common or trivial sorrow, will soon be\nmore clearly evinced. Thus, by contending with the power of the devil,\nwith the dread of death, and with the pains of hell, he obtained the\nvictory, and triumphed over them, that in death we may no longer dread\nthose things which our Prince has destroyed.\n\nXII. Here some contentious, though illiterate men, impelled rather by\nmalice than by ignorance, exclaim against me, that I am guilty of an\natrocious injury to Christ; because it is utterly unreasonable that he\nshould have any fear concerning the salvation of his soul. And then they\naggravate the cavil, by pretending that I attribute despair to the Son of\nGod, which is contrary to faith. In the first place, it is presumptuous in\nthem to raise a controversy concerning the fear and consternation of\nChrist, which is so expressly asserted by the evangelists. For, before the\napproach of his death, he experienced a perturbation of spirit and\ndepression of mind; but, in the actual struggle with it, he began to feel\na greater degree of consternation. If they say that this was only\npretence, it is a most paltry subterfuge. We ought, therefore, as Ambrose\njustly advises, fearlessly to acknowledge the sorrow of Christ, unless we\nare ashamed of his cross. And, indeed, if his soul had experienced no\npunishment, he would have been only a Redeemer for the body. It was\nnecessary for him to combat, in order to raise up those who lay prostrate\non the earth; and his heavenly glory is so far from being diminished by\nthis, that his goodness, which is never sufficiently celebrated, is\nconspicuous in his voluntary and unreluctant assumption of our\ninfirmities. Hence that consolation which the apostle offers us under our\nanxieties and sorrows, that this Mediator has experienced our infirmities,\nin order that he might be the more ready to succour the wretched.(1301)\nThey pretend, that what is intrinsically bad cannot be justly attributed\nto Christ; as though they were wiser than the Spirit of God, who connects\nthese two things together, that Christ \u201cwas in all points tempted like as\nwe are, yet without sin.\u201d We have no reason, therefore, to be alarmed by\nthe infirmity of Christ, to which he was not compelled by violence or\nnecessity, but induced merely by his mercy and love for us voluntarily to\nsubmit himself. But none of his voluntary sufferings for us have been any\ndiminution of his power. These captious objectors, however, are deceived\nin one point; they do not perceive that this infirmity in Christ was\nperfectly free from every stain of guilt, because he always kept himself\nwithin the limits of obedience. For, because no moderation can be\ndiscovered in the corruption of our nature, where all our passions\ntransgress all bounds with impetuous violence, they erroneously measure\nthe Son of God by this standard. But he being innocent, and free from\nevery defect, all his affections were governed by a moderation which\nadmitted of no excess. Whence it was very possible for him to resemble us\nin sorrow, fear, and dread, and yet, in this respect, to be very different\nfrom us. Refuted here, they proceed to another cavil; that, although\nChrist was afraid of death, yet he was not afraid of the malediction and\nwrath of God, from which he knew himself to be safe. But let the pious\nreader consider how much honour it reflects on Christ, that he was more\ndelicate and timorous than the generality of mankind. Robbers and other\nmalefactors obstinately rush forward to death; many men nobly despise it;\nothers calmly submit to it. But what constancy or magnanimity would the\nSon of God have discovered, in being astonished and almost struck dead\nwith the fear of it? For it is related of him, what might generally be\naccounted a prodigy, that through the vehemence of his agonies, drops of\nblood flowed from his face. Nor did he exhibit this spectacle to the eyes\nof others; he sent up his groans to his Father, in the secrecy of\nretirement. And every doubt is removed by the necessity that there was for\nangels to descend from heaven, to support him with unusual consolation.\nWhat disgraceful effeminacy, as I have suggested, would this have been, to\nbe so distressed by the fear of a common death, as to be in a bloody\nsweat, and incapable of being comforted without the presence of angels!\nWhat! does not this prayer, which he repeated three times, \u201cO my Father,\nif it be possible, let this cup pass from me,\u201d(1302) proceeding from an\nincredible bitterness of soul, demonstrate that Christ had a more severe\nand arduous conflict than with a common death? Whence it appears, that\nthose triflers, with whom I am now disputing, presumptuously chatter about\nthings which they know not; because they never seriously considered the\nnature or the importance of our redemption from the Divine judgment. But\nit is our wisdom to have a clear understanding how much our salvation cost\nthe Son of God. If any one inquire whether Christ was then descending to\nhell, when he deprecated death, I reply, that this was the prelude to it;\nwhence we may conclude what dreadful and horrible agonies he must have\nsuffered, while he was conscious of standing at the tribunal of God\naccused as a criminal on our account. But, although the Divine power of\nthe Spirit concealed itself for a moment, to give place to the infirmity\nof the flesh, yet we know, that the temptation arising from a sense of\ngrief and fear was such as was not repugnant to faith. And thus was\nfulfilled what we find in the sermon of Peter, \u201cthat it was not possible\nthat he should be holden of the pains of death;\u201d(1303) because, when he\nperceived himself, as it were, deserted by God, still he relaxed not in\nthe least from his confidence in his Father\u2019s goodness. This is evident\nfrom his celebrated invocation, when, through the vehemence of grief, he\nexclaimed, \u201cMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d(1304) For\nnotwithstanding his extreme agony, yet he continues to call God _his_ God,\neven when he complains that he is forsaken by him. Now, this serves to\nrefute the error of Apollinaris, and also of those who were called\nMonothelites. Apollinaris pretended that the eternal Spirit supplied the\nplace of a soul in Christ, so that he was but half a man, as though he\ncould expiate our sins without obedience to the Father. But where was the\ndisposition or will, requisite to obedience, but in his soul? which we\nknow was \u201ctroubled,\u201d(1305) in order to dissipate all our fears, and obtain\npeace and rest for ours. Moreover, in opposition to the Monothelites, we\nsee, that what was contrary to his will as man, was agreeable to his will\nas God. I say nothing of his overcoming the fear of which we have spoken,\nby a contrary disposition. For there is a manifest appearance of\ncontrariety when he says, \u201cFather, save me from this hour: but for this\ncause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.\u201d(1306) Yet, in this\nperplexity, there is no such want of moderation as is evident in us, even\nwhile we are exerting our most strenuous endeavours to conquer ourselves.\n\nXIII. Next follows his resurrection from the dead, without which all that\nwe have said would be incomplete. For, since there appears nothing but\ninfirmity in the cross, death, and burial of Christ, faith must proceed\nbeyond all these things, to be furnished with sufficient strength.\nWherefore, although our salvation is perfectly accomplished by his death,\nbecause by that we are reconciled to God, a satisfaction is given to his\nrighteous judgment, the curse is removed, and the punishment sustained,\nyet we are said to have been \u201cbegotten again to a lively hope,\u201d not by his\ndeath, but \u201cby his resurrection from the dead.\u201d(1307) For as at his\nresurrection he appeared the conqueror of death, so it is on his\nresurrection that our faith principally rests. This is better expressed in\nthe words of Paul, when he says, that Christ \u201cwas delivered for our\noffences, and was raised again for our justification;\u201d(1308) as though he\nhad said, that sin was removed by his death, and righteousness renewed and\nrestored by his resurrection. For how was it possible for him by dying to\nliberate us from death, if he had himself remained under its power? how\ncould he have obtained the victory for us, if he had been vanquished in\nthe contest? Wherefore we ascribe our salvation partly to the death of\nChrist, and partly to his resurrection; we believe that sin was abolished,\nand death destroyed, by the former; that righteousness was restored, and\nlife established, by the latter; yet so that the former discovers its\npower and efficacy in us by means of the latter. Therefore Paul asserts\nthat he was \u201cdeclared to be the Son of God, by the resurrection from the\ndead;\u201d(1309) because he then displayed his heavenly power, which is both a\nlucid mirror of his Divinity, and a firm support of our faith. So, in\nanother place, he says, that \u201che was crucified through weakness, yet he\nliveth by the power of God.\u201d(1310) In the same sense, in another place,\ntreating of perfection, he says, \u201cthat I may know him, and the power of\nhis resurrection.\u201d(1311) Yet, immediately after, he adds, \u201cthe fellowship\nof his sufferings, and conformity to his death.\u201d In perfect harmony with\nthis, is the following declaration of Peter: \u201cGod raised him up from the\ndead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God:\u201d(1312)\nnot that faith totters when it rests on his death; but because \u201cthe power\nof God,\u201d which \u201ckeeps us through faith,\u201d(1313) chiefly discovers itself in\nhis resurrection. Let us remember, therefore, that whenever mention is\nmade of his death alone, it comprehends also what strictly belongs to his\nresurrection; and that the same figure of speech is applied to the word\n_resurrection_, whenever it is used without any mention of his death, so\nthat it connects with it what is peculiarly applicable to his death. But\nsince it was by rising from the dead that he obtained the palm of victory,\nto become the resurrection and the life, Paul justly contends, that, \u201cif\nChrist be not risen, then is\u201d the \u201cpreaching\u201d of the gospel \u201cvain, and\u201d\nour \u201cfaith is also vain.\u201d(1314) Therefore, in another place, after having\ngloried in the death of Christ in opposition to all the fears of\ncondemnation, he adds, by way of amplification, \u201cYea, rather, that is\nrisen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh\nintercession for us.\u201d(1315) Besides, as we have before stated, that the\nmortification of our flesh depends on communion with his cross, so it must\nalso be understood, that we obtain another benefit, corresponding to that,\nfrom his resurrection. The apostle says, \u201cIf we have been planted together\nin the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his\nresurrection: even so we also should walk in newness of life.\u201d(1316)\nTherefore, in another place, as, from our being dead with Christ, he\ndeduces an argument for the mortification of our members which are upon\nthe earth,(1317) so also, because we are risen with Christ, he thence\ninfers that we should seek those things which are above, and not those\nwhich are on the earth.(1318) By which expressions we are not only invited\nto walk in newness of life, after the example of Christ raised from the\ndead, but are taught that our regeneration to righteousness is effected by\nhis power. We derive also a third benefit from his resurrection, having\nreceived, as it were, a pledge to assure us of our own resurrection, of\nwhich his clearly affords the most solid foundation and evidence. This\nsubject the apostle discusses more at large in the First Epistle to the\nCorinthians.(1319) But it must be remarked by the way, that when he is\nsaid to have \u201crisen from the dead,\u201d this phrase expresses the reality both\nof his death and of his resurrection; as though it were said, that he died\nthe same death as other men naturally die, and received immortality in the\nsame body which he had assumed in a mortal state.\n\nXIV. His _resurrection_ is properly followed in the Creed by his\n_ascension to heaven_. For though Christ began to make a more illustrious\ndisplay of his glory and power at his resurrection, having now laid aside\nthe abject and ignoble condition of this mortal life, and the ignominy of\nthe cross, yet his ascension into heaven was the real commencement of his\nreign. This the apostle shows, when he informs us, that he \u201cascended that\nhe might fill all things.\u201d(1320) Here, in an apparent contradiction, he\nsuggests to us that there is a beautiful harmony, because Christ departed\nfrom us, that his departure might be more useful to us than that presence,\nwhich, during his continuance on earth, confined itself within the humble\nmansion of his body. Therefore John, after having related that remarkable\ninvitation, \u201cIf any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink,\u201d\nsubjoins, that \u201cthe Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was\nnot yet glorified.\u201d(1321) This the Lord himself also declared to his\ndisciples: \u201cIt is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away,\nthe Comforter will not come unto you.\u201d(1322) Now, he proposes a\nconsolation for his corporeal absence, that he \u201cwill not leave them\ncomfortless, or orphans, but will come again to them,\u201d in a manner\ninvisible indeed, but more desirable; because they were then taught by a\nmore certain experience that the authority which he enjoys, and the power\nwhich he exercises, is sufficient for the faithful, not only to procure\nthem a blessed life, but to insure them a happy death. And, indeed, we see\nhow largely he then increased the effusions of his Spirit, how greatly he\nadvanced the magnificence of his reign, and what superior power he exerted\nboth in assisting his friends, and in defeating his enemies. Being\nreceived up into heaven, therefore he removed his corporeal presence from\nour view; not that he might no longer be present with the faithful who\nwere still in a state of pilgrimage on earth, but that he might govern\nboth heaven and earth by a more efficacious energy. Moreover, his promise,\nthat he would be with us till the end of the world, he has performed by\nthis his ascension; by which, as his body was elevated above all heavens,\nso his power and energy have been diffused and extended beyond all the\nlimits of heaven and earth. In representing this, I would prefer the\nlanguage of Augustine to my own. \u201cChrist,\u201d says he, \u201cwas about to go by\ndeath to the right hand of the Father, whence he will hereafter come to\njudge the living and the dead; and this by a corporeal presence, according\nto the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For in his spiritual presence\nwith them, he was to come soon after his ascension.\u201d And elsewhere he\ntreats this subject in a manner still more diffuse and explicit. By his\nineffable and invisible grace, Christ has fulfilled his declaration, \u201cLo,\nI am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.\u201d(1323) But with\nrespect to the body which the Word assumed, which was born of the Virgin,\nwhich was apprehended by the Jews, which was fixed to the cross, which was\ntaken down from the cross, which was folded in linen, which was laid in\nthe sepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, there has been an\naccomplishment of this prediction: \u201cYe shall not have me always with you.\u201d\nWhy? Because in his corporeal presence he conversed with his disciples for\nforty days, and while they were attending him, seen but not followed by\nthem, he ascended into heaven; and he is not here, for he sits there at\nthe right hand of the Father; and yet he is here, for he has not withdrawn\nthe presence of his majesty. In the presence of his majesty, therefore, we\nhave Christ always with us; but with respect to his corporeal presence, he\nsaid with truth to his disciples, \u201cMe ye have not always.\u201d For the Church\nenjoyed his corporeal presence for a few days; now she enjoys him by\nfaith, and does not behold him with her eyes.\n\nXV. Wherefore it is immediately added, _that he is seated at the right\nhand of the Father_; which is a similitude borrowed from princes, who have\ntheir assistants, to whom they depute the exercise of the government. So\nChrist, in whom the Father determines to be exalted, and by whose medium\nhe chooses to reign, is said to have been received to his right hand; as\nthough it were said, that he had been inaugurated in the government of\nheaven and earth, and had solemnly entered on the actual administration of\nthe power committed to him; and not only that he has entered on it, but\nthat he continues in it, till he descends to judgment. For so the apostle\nexplains it, in the following words: \u201cThe Father hath set him at his own\nright hand, far above all principality, and power, and might, and\ndominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also\nin that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave\nhim to be the head over all things to the church,\u201d &c.(1324) We see the\nend of this session; it is, that all creatures, both celestial and\nterrestrial, may admire his majesty, be governed by his hand, obey his\nwill, and be subject to his power. And the only design of the apostles in\ntheir frequent mention of it, is to teach us that all things are committed\nto his government. Wherefore they who suppose that nothing but blessedness\nis signified in this article, are not right in that opinion. It affects\nnot our argument, that Stephen declares that he sees Christ\n\u201cstanding,\u201d(1325) because the present question relates, not to the posture\nof his body, but to the majesty of his dominion; so that _sitting_\nsignifies no other than presiding at the tribunal of heaven.\n\nXVI. Hence faith receives many advantages. For it perceives, that by his\nascension the Lord has opened the way to the kingdom of heaven, which had\nbeen stopped by Adam. For since he entered there in our nature, and as it\nwere in our names, it follows that, as the apostle expresses it, we now\n\u201csit together\u201d with him \u201cin heavenly places,\u201d(1326) because we not only\nhope for heaven, but already possess it in our Head. Besides, faith knows\nthat his residence with his Father conduces greatly to our advantage. For\nbeing entered into a sanctuary, which is not of human erection,(1327) he\ncontinually appears in the presence of the Father as our advocate and\nintercessor;(1328) he attracts the eyes of the Father to his\nrighteousness, so as to avert them from our sins; he reconciles him to us,\nso as to procure for us, by his intercession, a way of access to his\nthrone, which he replenishes with grace and mercy, but which otherwise\nwould be pregnant with horror to miserable sinners.(1329) In the third\nplace, faith has an apprehension of his power, in which consists our\nstrength, our fortitude, our wealth, and our triumph over hell. For \u201cwhen\nhe ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,\u201d(1330) spoiled his\nenemies, and enriched his people, and daily loads them with spiritual\nfavours. He sits, therefore, on high, that from thence he may shed forth\nhis power upon us, that he may animate us with spiritual life, that he may\nsanctify us by his Spirit, that he may adorn his Church with a variety of\ngraces, and defend it by his protection from every calamity, that by the\nstrength of his hand he may restrain the ferocious enemies of his cross\nand of our salvation; finally, that he may retain all power in heaven and\nin earth; till he shall have overthrown all his enemies, who are also\nours, and completed the edification of his Church. And this is the true\nstate of his kingdom, this the power which the Father has conferred on\nhim, till he completes the last act by coming to judge the living and the\ndead.\n\nXVII. Christ gives his servants unequivocal tokens of the presence of his\npower; but because on earth his kingdom is in some measure concealed under\nthe meanness of the flesh, faith is, for a very good reason, called to\nmeditate on that visible presence which he will manifest at the last day.\nFor he will descend from heaven in a visible form, in the same manner in\nwhich he was seen to ascend;(1331) and will appear to all with the\nineffable majesty of his kingdom, with the splendour of immortality, with\nthe infinite power of Deity, and with a host of angels.(1332) From thence,\ntherefore, we are commanded to expect him as our Redeemer at the last day,\nwhen he will separate the sheep from the goats, the elect from the\nreprobate; and there will not be an individual of either the living or the\ndead that can escape his judgment. For from the most remote corners of the\nworld they will hear the sound of the trumpet, with which all mankind will\nbe summoned to his tribunal, both those whom that day shall find alive,\nand those whom death shall previously have removed from the society of the\nliving. There are some who understand the words _quick_, or _living, and\ndead_, in a different sense. And indeed we find that some of the fathers\nhesitated respecting the exposition of this clause; but the sense we have\ngiven, being plain and clear, is far more consistent with the design of\nthe Creed, which appears to have been composed for the common people. Nor\nis this repugnant to the assertion of the apostle, that \u201cit is appointed\nunto men once to die.\u201d(1333) For although they who shall survive in this\nmortal life till the last judgment, shall not die in a natural manner and\norder, yet that change, which they shall experience, since it will\nresemble death, may without impropriety be designated by that appellation.\nIt is certain indeed that \u201call shall not sleep, but all shall be\nchanged.\u201d(1334) What is that? In one moment their mortal life will be\nextinguished and absorbed, and will be transformed into a nature entirely\nnew. This extinction of the flesh no man can deny to be death.\nNevertheless it remains a truth, that the living and the dead will be\nsummoned to judgment; for \u201cthe dead in Christ shall rise first: then they\nwhich are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the\nclouds, to meet the Lord in the air.\u201d(1335) And it is very probable that\nthis article was taken from the sermon of Peter,(1336) and from the solemn\ncharge of Paul to Timothy.(1337)\n\nXVIII. It is a source of peculiar consolation to hear that he will preside\nat the judgment, who has already destined us to participate with himself\nthe honour of sitting in judgment with him, so far will he be from\nascending the tribunal to condemn us. For how could a most merciful prince\ndestroy his own people? how could a head scatter his own members? how\ncould an advocate condemn his own clients? For if the apostle ventures to\nexclaim, that no one can condemn us while Christ intercedes for us,(1338)\nit is much more certain that Christ himself, our intercessor, will not\ncondemn those whose cause he has undertaken, and whom he has engaged to\nsupport. Indeed, it is no inconsiderable security, that we shall stand\nbefore no other tribunal than that of our Redeemer, from whom we are to\nexpect salvation; and that he, who by the gospel now promises eternal\nlife, will at the judgment ratify and perform the promise which he has\ngiven. The design of the Father in honouring the Son by \u201ccommitting all\njudgment to him,\u201d(1339) was, that he might relieve the consciences of his\npeople from all fear concerning the judgment. Thus far I have followed the\norder of the Apostles\u2019 Creed; because, while it comprises, in a few words,\nthe principal points of redemption, it may serve to give us a distinct and\nseparate view of those particulars respecting Christ which merit our\nattention. I style it the Apostles\u2019 Creed, but am not at all solicitous to\nknow who was the composer of it. The ancient writers agree in ascribing it\nto the apostles, either from a belief that it was written and published by\ntheir common concurrence, or from an opinion that this compendium, being\nfaithfully collected from the doctrine delivered by them, was worthy of\nbeing sanctioned by such a title. And whoever was the author of it, I have\nno doubt that it has been publicly and universally received as a\nconfession of faith from the first origin of the Church, and even from the\ndays of the apostles. Nor is it probable that it was composed by any\nprivate individual, since from time immemorial it has evidently been\nesteemed as of sacred authority by all the pious. But what we ought\nprincipally to regard, is beyond all controversy\u2014that it comprehends a\ncomplete account of our faith in a concise and distinct order, and that\nevery thing it contains is confirmed by decisive testimonies of Scripture.\nThis being ascertained, it is of no use anxiously to inquire, or to\ncontend with any one, respecting its author, unless it be not sufficient\nfor any one to have the unerring truth of the Holy Spirit, without knowing\neither by whose mouth it was uttered, or by whose hand it was written.\n\nXIX. Since we see that the whole of our salvation, and all the branches of\nit, are comprehended in Christ, we must be cautious not to alienate from\nhim the least possible portion of it. If we seek salvation, we are taught\nby the name of JESUS, that it is in him; if we seek any other gifts of the\nSpirit, they will be found in his unction; strength, in his dominion;\npurity, in his conception; indulgence discovers itself in his nativity, by\nwhich he was made to resemble us in all things, that he might learn to\ncondole with us; if we seek redemption, it will be found in his passion;\nabsolution, in his condemnation; remission of the curse, in his cross;\nsatisfaction, in his sacrifice; purification, in his blood;\nreconciliation, in his descent into hell; mortification of the flesh, in\nhis sepulchre; newness of life and immortality, in his resurrection; the\ninheritance of the celestial kingdom, in his entrance into heaven;\nprotection, security, abundance, and enjoyment of all blessings, in his\nkingdom; a fearless expectation of the judgment, in the judicial authority\ncommitted to him. Finally, blessings of every kind are deposited in him;\nlet us draw from his treasury, and from no other source, till our desires\nare satisfied. For they who, not content with him alone, are carried\nhither and thither into a variety of hopes, although they fix their eyes\nprincipally on him, nevertheless deviate from the right way in the\ndiversion of any part of their attention to another quarter. This\ndistrust, however, cannot intrude, where the plenitude of his blessings\nhas once been truly known.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XVII. Christ Truly And Properly Said To Have Merited The Grace Of\nGod And Salvation For Us.\n\n\nWe must devote an additional Chapter to the solution of this question. For\nthere are some men, more subtle than orthodox, who, though they confess\nthat Christ obtained salvation for us, yet cannot bear the word _merit_,\nby which they suppose the grace of God is obscured. So they maintain that\nChrist is only the instrument or minister, not, as he is called by Peter,\nthe Author, or Leader, and \u201cPrince of life.\u201d(1340) I grant, indeed, if any\nman would oppose Christ simply and alone to the judgment of God, there\nwould be no room for merit; because it is impossible to find in man any\nexcellence which can merit the favour of God; nay, as Augustine most truly\nobserves, \u201cThe brightest illustration of predestination and grace is the\nSaviour himself, the man Christ Jesus, who has acquired this character in\nhis human nature, without any previous merit either of works or of faith.\nLet any one tell me, how that man merited the honour of being assumed into\none person with the Word, who is co\u00ebternal with the Father, and so\nbecoming the only begotten Son of God. Thus the fountain of grace appears\nin our Head, and from him diffuses its streams through all his members\naccording to their respective capacities. Every one, from the commencement\nof his faith, is made a Christian, by the same grace, by which this man,\nfrom the commencement of his existence, was made the Christ.\u201d Again, in\nanother treatise, Augustine says, \u201cThere is not a more illustrious example\nof predestination than the Mediator himself. For he who made of the seed\nof David this righteous man, so that he never was unrighteous, without any\nprevious merit of his will, converts unrighteous persons into righteous\nones, and makes them members of that Head,\u201d &c. When we speak of the merit\nof Christ, therefore, we do not consider him as the origin of it, but we\nascend to the ordination of God, which is the first cause; because it was\nof his mere good pleasure, that God appointed him Mediator to procure\nsalvation for us. And thus it betrays ignorance to oppose the merit of\nChrist to the mercy of God. For it is a common maxim, that between two\nthings, of which one succeeds or is subordinate to the other, there can be\nno opposition. There is no reason, therefore, why the justification of men\nshould not be gratuitous from the mere mercy of God, and why at the same\ntime the merit of Christ should not intervene, which is subservient to the\nmercy of God. But to our works are directly and equally opposed the\ngratuitous favour of God and the obedience of Christ, each in its\nrespective place. For Christ could merit nothing except by the good\npleasure of God, by which he had been predestinated to appease the Divine\nwrath by his sacrifice, and to abolish our transgressions by his\nobedience. To conclude, since the merit of Christ depends solely on the\ngrace of God, which appointed this method of salvation for us, therefore\nhis merit and that grace are with equal propriety opposed to all the\nrighteousnesses of men.\n\nII. This distinction is gathered from numerous passages of Scripture. \u201cGod\nso loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever\nbelieveth in him should not perish.\u201d(1341) We see that the love of God\nholds the first place, as the supreme and original cause, and that faith\nin Christ follows as the second and proximate cause. If it be objected,\nthat Christ is only the formal cause, this diminishes his merit more than\nthe words now quoted will bear. For if we obtain righteousness by a faith\nwhich relies on him, it is in him we are to seek the cause of our\nsalvation. This is evident from many passages. \u201cNot that we loved God, but\nthat he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our\nsins.\u201d(1342) These words clearly demonstrate, that to remove every\nobstacle in the way of his love towards us, God appointed a method of\nreconciliation in Christ. And there is much contained in the word\n\u201cpropitiation;\u201d for God, in a certain ineffable manner, at the same time\nthat he loved us, was nevertheless angry with us, till he was reconciled\nin Christ. This is implied in the following passages: \u201cHe is the\npropitiation for our sins.\u201d(1343) Again: \u201cIt pleased the Father, having\nmade peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things\nunto himself.\u201d(1344) Again: \u201cGod was in Christ, reconciling the world unto\nhimself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.\u201d(1345) Again: \u201cHe hath\nmade us accepted in the Beloved.\u201d(1346) Again: \u201cThat he might reconcile\nboth unto God in one body by the cross.\u201d(1347) The reason of this mystery\nmay be learned from the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians,\nwhere Paul, having taught that we are chosen in Christ, adds at the same\ntime, that we are accepted in him. How did God begin to favour those whom\nhe had loved before the creation of the world, but by the manifestation\nwhich he made of his love when he was reconciled by the blood of Christ?\nFor since God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be\nthe enemy and judge of every sinner. Wherefore the beginning of his love\nis the righteousness described by Paul: \u201cHe hath made him to be sin for\nus, who knew no sin; that we may be made the righteousness of God in\nhim.\u201d(1348) For his meaning is, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain\ngratuitous righteousness, so as to be acceptable to God, though by nature\nwe are the children of wrath, and alienated from him by sin. This\ndistinction is indicated also wherever the grace of Christ is connected\nwith the love of God; whence it follows that our Saviour bestows on us\nwhat he has purchased; for otherwise it would be inconsistent to ascribe\nthis praise to him distinctly from the Father, that grace is his, and\nproceeds from him.\n\nIII. Now, that Christ by his obedience has really procured and merited\ngrace from the Father for us, is certainly and justly concluded from\nvarious passages of Scripture. For I assume this as granted: if Christ has\nsatisfied for our sins; if he has sustained the punishment due to us; if\nhe has appeased God by his obedience; in a word, if he has suffered, the\njust for the unjust,\u2014then salvation has been obtained for us by his\nrighteousness, which is the same as being merited. But according to the\ntestimony of Paul, \u201cWe were reconciled by his death, by whom we have\nreceived the atonement,\u201d or reconciliation.(1349) Now, there is no room\nfor reconciliation without a previous offence. The sense therefore is,\nthat God, to whom our sins had rendered us odious, has been appeased by\nthe death of his Son, so as to be propitious to us. And the antithesis,\nwhich follows just after, is worthy of careful observation: \u201cAs by one\nman\u2019s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one\nshall many be made righteous.\u201d(1350) For the meaning is, that as by the\nsin of Adam we were alienated from God and devoted to destruction, so by\nthe obedience of Christ we are received into favour, as righteous persons.\nNor does the future tense of the verb exclude present righteousness; as\nappears from the context. For he had before said, \u201cThe free gift is of\nmany offences unto justification.\u201d(1351)\n\nIV. But when we say that grace is procured for us by the merit of Christ,\nwe intend, that we have been purified by his blood, and that his death was\nan expiation for sins. \u201cThe blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all\nsin.\u201d(1352) \u201cThis blood is shed for the remission of sins.\u201d(1353) If the\nnon\u2010imputation of our sins to us be the effect of the blood which he shed,\nit follows that this was the price of satisfaction to the justice of God.\nThis is confirmed by the declaration of the Baptist: \u201cBehold the Lamb of\nGod, which taketh away the sin of the world.\u201d(1354) For he opposes Christ\nto all the sacrifices of the law, to show that what they prefigured was\naccomplished in him alone. Now we know what Moses frequently says\u2014that an\natonement shall be made for sin, and it shall be forgiven. In short, the\nancient figures give us a fine exhibition of the power and efficacy of the\ndeath of Christ. And the apostle copiously discusses this subject in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, judiciously assuming this as a fundamental\nprinciple, that \u201cwithout shedding of blood there is no remission.\u201d Whence\nhe infers, that Christ has \u201conce appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice\nof himself;\u201d and that \u201che was offered to bear the sins of many.\u201d(1355) He\nhad already said, that \u201cNot by the blood of goats and calves, but by his\nown blood; he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal\nredemption.\u201d(1356) Now, when he argues in this manner, \u201cIf the blood of\nbulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,\nsanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood\nof Christ purge your conscience from dead works!\u201d(1357) it evidently\nappears that we too much undervalue the grace of Christ, unless we\nattribute to his sacrifice an expiatory, placatory, and satisfactory\nefficacy. Therefore it is immediately added, \u201cHe is the mediator of the\nNew Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the\ntransgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called\nmight receive the promise of eternal inheritance.\u201d(1358) But we ought\nparticularly to consider the relation described by Paul, that he was \u201cmade\na curse for us.\u201d(1359) For it would be unnecessary, and consequently\nabsurd, for Christ to be loaded with a curse, except in order to discharge\nthe debts due from others, and thereby to obtain a righteousness for them.\nThe testimony of Isaiah likewise is clear, that \u201cthe chastisement of our\npeace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.\u201d(1360) For if\nChrist had not made a satisfaction for our sins, he could not be said to\nhave appeased God by suffering the punishment to which we were exposed.\nThis is confirmed by a subsequent clause: \u201cFor the transgression of my\npeople was he stricken.\u201d(1361) Let us add the interpretation of Peter,\nwhich will remove all difficulty, that \u201che bare our sins in his own body\non the tree;\u201d(1362) which imports that the burden of condemnation, from\nwhich we have been relieved, was laid upon Christ.\n\nV. The apostles explicitly declare, that he paid a price to redeem us from\nthe sentence of death: \u201cBeing justified freely by his grace, through the\nredemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a\npropitiation, through faith in his blood.\u201d(1363) Here Paul celebrates the\ngrace of God, because he has given the price of our redemption in the\ndeath of Christ; and then enjoins us to betake ourselves to his blood,\nthat we may obtain righteousness, and may stand secure before the judgment\nof God. Peter confirms the same when he says, \u201cYe were not redeemed with\ncorruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of\nChrist, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.\u201d(1364) For there\nwould be no propriety in the comparison, unless this blood had been the\nprice of satisfaction for sin; for which reason Paul says, \u201cYe are bought\nwith a price.\u201d(1365) Nor would there be any truth in his other assertion,\nthat \u201cthere is one Mediator, who gave himself a ransom,\u201d(1366) unless the\npunishment due to our demerits had been transferred to him. Therefore the\nsame apostle defines \u201credemption through his blood\u201d to be \u201cthe forgiveness\nof sins;\u201d(1367) as though he had said, We are justified or acquitted\nbefore God, because that blood is a complete satisfaction for us. This is\nconsonant with the following passage, that \u201che blotted out the hand\u2010\nwriting, which was contrary to us, nailing it to his cross.\u201d(1368) For\nthese words signify the payment or compensation which absolves us from\nguilt. There is great weight also in these words of Paul: \u201cIf\nrighteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.\u201d(1369) For\nhence we conclude, that we must seek from Christ what the law would confer\nupon any one who fulfilled it; or, which is the same, that we obtain by\nthe grace of Christ what God promised in the law to our works; \u201cwhich\u201d\ncommandments \u201cif a man do, he shall live in them.\u201d(1370) This the apostle\nconfirms with equal perspicuity in his sermon at Antioch, asserting that\n\u201cby Christ all that believe are justified from all things, from which they\ncould not be justified by the law of Moses.\u201d(1371) For if righteousness\nconsist in an observance of the law, who can deny that Christ merited\nfavour for us, when, by bearing this burden himself, he reconciles us to\nGod, just as though we were complete observers of the law ourselves? The\nsame idea is conveyed in what he afterwards writes to the Galatians, that\n\u201cGod sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were\nunder the law.\u201d(1372) For what was the design of that subjection to the\nlaw, but to procure a righteousness for us, by undertaking to perform that\nwhich we were not able to do? Hence that imputation of righteousness\nwithout works, of which Paul treats;(1373) because that righteousness\nwhich is found in Christ alone is accepted as ours. Nor indeed is the\n\u201cflesh\u201d of Christ called our \u201cfood\u201d(1374) for any other reason but because\nwe find in it the substance of life. Now, this virtue proceeds solely from\nthe crucifixion of the Son of God, as the price of our righteousness. Thus\nPaul says, \u201cChrist hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice\nto God for a sweet\u2010smelling savour.\u201d(1375) And in another place, \u201cHe was\ndelivered for our offences, and was raised again for our\njustification.\u201d(1376) Hence it is inferred, not only that salvation is\ngiven us through Christ, but that the Father is now propitious to us for\nhis sake. For it cannot be doubted, but this, which God declares in a\nfigurative way by Isaiah, is perfectly fulfilled in him: \u201cI will\u201d do it\n\u201cfor mine own sake, and for my servant David\u2019s sake.\u201d(1377) Of this the\napostle is a sufficient witness, when he says, \u201cYour sins are forgiven you\nfor his name\u2019s sake.\u201d(1378) For although the name of Christ is not\nexpressed, yet John, in his usual manner, designates him by the pronoun\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _he_. In this sense the Lord declares, \u201cAs I live by the Father, so\nhe that eateth me, even he shall live by me.\u201d(1379) With which corresponds\nthe following declaration of Paul: \u201cUnto you it is given for the love of\nChrist (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for\nhis sake.\u201d(1380)\n\nVI. But the inquiry made by Lombard and the schoolmen, whether Christ\nmerited for himself, discovers as much foolish curiosity, as the assertion\ndoes presumption when they affirm it. For what necessity was there for the\nonly begotten Son of God to descend, in order to make any new acquisition\nfor himself? And God by the publication of his own counsel removes every\ndoubt. For it is said, not that the Father consulted the benefit of the\nSon in his merits, but that he \u201cdelivered him to death, and spared him\nnot,\u201d(1381) \u201cbecause he loved the world.\u201d(1382) And the language of the\nprophets is worthy of observation: \u201cUnto us a Child is born.\u201d(1383) Again:\n\u201cRejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; behold, thy King cometh unto\nthee.\u201d(1384) There would otherwise be no force in that confirmation of his\nlove, which Paul celebrates, that he \u201cdied for us, while we were\nenemies.\u201d(1385) For we infer from this, that he had no regard to himself;\nand this he clearly affirms himself, when he says, \u201cFor their sakes I\nsanctify myself.\u201d(1386) For by transferring the benefit of his sanctity to\nothers, he declares that he makes no acquisition for himself. And it is\nhighly worthy of our observation, that in order to devote himself wholly\nto our salvation, Christ in a manner forgot himself. To support this\nnotion of theirs, the schoolmen preposterously pervert the following\npassage of Paul: \u201cWherefore also God hath highly exalted him, and given\nhim a name which is above every name.\u201d(1387) For, considered as a man, by\nwhat merits could he obtain such dignity as to be the Judge of the world\nand the Head of angels, to enjoy the supreme dominion of God, and to be\nthe residence of that majesty, the thousandth part of which can never be\napproached by all the abilities of men and of angels? But the solution is\neasy and complete, that Paul, in that passage, is not treating of the\ncause of the exaltation of Christ, but only showing the consequence of it,\nthat he might be an example to us; nor did he mean any other than what is\ndeclared in another place, that \u201cChrist ought to have suffered, and to\nenter into his glory.\u201d(1388)\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III. ON THE MANNER OF RECEIVING THE GRACE OF CHRIST, THE BENEFITS\nWHICH WE DERIVE FROM IT, AND THE EFFECTS WHICH FOLLOW IT.\n\n\n\n\nArgument.\n\n\nThe two former books relate to God the Creator and Redeemer. This treats\nof God the Sanctifier, or of the operations of the Holy Spirit towards our\nsalvation, being an accurate exposition of the third part of the Apostles\u2019\nCreed.\n\nThe principal topics of this are seven, relating chiefly to one object,\nthe doctrine of faith.\n\nFirst. Since our enjoyment of Christ and all his benefits depends on the\nsecret and special operation of the Holy Spirit, it discusses this\noperation, which is the foundation of faith, of newness of life, and of\nall holy exercises\u2014Chap. I.\n\nSecondly. Faith being as it were the hand by which we embrace Christ the\nRedeemer, as offered to us by the Holy Spirit, it next adds a complete\ndescription of faith\u2014Chap. II.\n\nThirdly. To improve our knowledge of this salutary faith, it proceeds to\nshow the effects which necessarily result from it; and contends that true\npenitence is always the consequence of true faith. But first it proposes\nthe doctrine of repentance in general\u2014Chap. III.; and then treats of\nPopish penance and its constituent parts\u2014Chap. IV.\u2014of indulgences and\npurgatorial fire\u2014Chap. V. But institutes a particular discussion of the\ntwo branches of true penitence, the mortification of the flesh, and the\nvivification of the spirit, or the life of a Christian, which is\nexcellently described\u2014Chap. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.\n\nFourthly. In order to a clearer display of the advantages and consequences\nof this faith, it first treats of justification by faith\u2014Chap. XI.\u2014then\nexplains the questions which arise from it\u2014Chap. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI.\nXVII. XVIII.\u2014and, lastly, proceeds to a dissertation on Christian liberty,\nwhich is an appendage to justification\u2014Chap. XIX.\n\nFifthly. Next follows prayer, the principal exercise of faith, and the\nmedium or instrument by which we daily receive blessings from God\u2014Chap.\nXX.\n\nSixthly. But since the communication of Christ offered in the gospel is\nnot embraced by men in general, but only by those whom the Lord has\nfavoured with the efficacy and peculiar grace of his Spirit, it obviates\nany supposition of absurdity, by subjoining a necessary and appropriate\ndissertation on the doctrine of Divine election\u2014Chap. XXI. XXII. XXIII.\nXXIV.\n\nLastly. Since we are liable to various difficulties and troubles while\nexercised in the severe warfare which always attends the life of a\nChristian, it contends that this may be alleviated by meditating on the\nfinal resurrection; and therefore adds a discourse on that subject\u2014Chap.\nXXV.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. What Is Declared Concerning Christ Rendered Profitable To Us By\nThe Secret Operation Of The Spirit.\n\n\nWe are now to examine how we obtain the enjoyment of those blessings which\nthe Father has conferred on his only begotten Son, not for his own private\nuse, but to enrich the poor and needy. And first it must be remarked, that\nas long as there is a separation between Christ and us, all that he\nsuffered and performed for the salvation of mankind is useless and\nunavailing to us. To communicate to us what he received from his Father,\nhe must, therefore, become ours, and dwell within us. On this account he\nis called our \u201cHead,\u201d(1389) and \u201cthe first\u2010born among many\nbrethren;\u201d(1390) and we, on the other hand, are said to be \u201cgrafted into\nhim,\u201d(1391) and to \u201cput him on;\u201d(1392) for, as I have observed, whatever\nhe possesses is nothing to us, till we are united to him. But though it be\ntrue that we obtain this by faith, yet, since we see that the\ncommunication of Christ, offered in the gospel, is not promiscuously\nembraced by all, reason itself teaches us to proceed further, and to\ninquire into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we are introduced\nto the enjoyment of Christ and all his benefits. I have already treated of\nthe eternal Deity and essence of the Spirit; let us now confine ourselves\nto this particular point: Christ came thus by water and blood, that the\nSpirit may testify concerning him, in order that the salvation procured by\nhim may not be lost to us. For as \u201cthere are three that bear record in\nheaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,\u201d so also \u201cthere are three on\nearth, the spirit, the water, and the blood.\u201d(1393) Nor is this a useless\nrepetition of the testimony of the Spirit, which we perceive to be\nengraven like a seal on our hearts, so that it seals the ablution and\nsacrifice of Christ. For which reason Peter also says, that believers are\n\u201celect through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling\nof the blood of Jesus Christ.\u201d(1394) This passage suggests to us, that our\nsouls are purified by the secret ablution of the Spirit, that the effusion\nof that sacred blood may not be in vain. For the same reason also Paul,\nwhen speaking of purification and justification, says, we enjoy both \u201cin\nthe name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.\u201d(1395) The sum\nof all is this\u2014that the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ\nefficaciously unites us to himself. And what we have advanced in the last\nbook concerning his unction, tends to establish the same truth.\n\nII. But as a further confirmation of this point, which is highly worthy of\nbeing understood, we must remember that Christ was endued with the Holy\nSpirit in a peculiar manner; in order to separate us from the world, and\nintroduce us into the hope of an eternal inheritance. Hence the Spirit is\ncalled \u201cthe Spirit of holiness;\u201d(1396) not only because he animates and\nsupports us by that general power which is displayed in mankind, and in\nall other creatures, but because he is the seed and root of a heavenly\nlife within us. The principal topic, therefore, dwelt on by the prophets\nin celebrating the kingdom of Christ, is, that there would then be a more\nexuberant effusion of the Spirit. The most remarkable passage is that of\nJoel: \u201cI will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh in those days.\u201d(1397) For,\nthough the prophet seems to restrict the gifts of the Spirit to the\nexercise of the prophetic function, yet he signifies, in a figurative way,\nthat God, by the illumination of his Spirit, will make those his\ndisciples, who before were total strangers to the heavenly doctrine.\nBesides, as God the Father gives us his Holy Spirit for the sake of his\nSon, and yet has deposited \u201call fulness\u201d with his Son, that he might be\nthe minister and dispenser of his own goodness,\u2014the Holy Spirit is\nsometimes called the Spirit of the Father, and sometimes the Spirit of the\nSon. \u201cYe (says Paul) are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be\nthat the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit\nof Christ, he is none of his.\u201d(1398) And thence he inspires a hope of\ncomplete renovation, for \u201che that raised up Christ from the dead, shall\nalso quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.\u201d(1399)\nFor there is no absurdity in ascribing to the Father the praise of his own\ngifts, of which he is the author; and also ascribing the same glory to\nChrist, with whom the gifts of the Spirit are deposited, to be given to\nhis people. Therefore he invites all who thirst to come to him and\ndrink.(1400) And Paul teaches us, that \u201cunto every one of us is given\ngrace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.\u201d(1401) And it must\nbe remarked, that he is called the Spirit of Christ, not only because the\neternal Word of God is united with the same Spirit as the Father, but also\nwith respect to his character of Mediator; for, if he had not been endued\nwith this power, his advent to us would have been altogether in vain. In\nwhich sense he is called \u201cthe second Adam, the Lord from heaven, a\nquickening Spirit;\u201d(1402) where Paul compares the peculiar life with which\nthe Son of God inspires his people, that they may be one with him, to that\nanimal life which is equally common to the reprobate. So, where he wishes\nto the faithful \u201cthe grace of Christ, and the love of God,\u201d he adds also\n\u201cthe communion of the Spirit,\u201d(1403) without which there can be no\nenjoyment of the paternal favour of God, or the beneficence of Christ. As\nhe says also in another place, \u201cthe love of God is shed abroad in our\nhearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.\u201d(1404)\n\nIII. And here it will be proper to notice the titles by which the\nScripture distinguishes the Spirit, where it treats of the commencement,\nprogress, and completion of our salvation. First, he is called the \u201cSpirit\nof adoption,\u201d(1405) because he witnesses to us the gratuitous benevolence\nof God, with which God the Father has embraced us in his beloved and only\nbegotten Son, that he might be a father to us; and animates us to pray\nwith confidence, and even dictates expressions, so that we may boldly cry,\n\u201cAbba, Father.\u201d For the same reason, he is said to be \u201cthe earnest\u201d and\n\u201cseal\u201d of our inheritance; because, while we are pilgrims and strangers in\nthe world, and as persons dead, he infuses into us such life from heaven,\nthat we are certain of our salvation being secured by the Divine\nfaithfulness and care.(1406) Whence he is also said to be \u201clife,\u201d because\nof righteousness.(1407) Since by his secret showers he makes us fertile in\nproducing the fruits of righteousness, he is frequently called \u201cwater;\u201d as\nin Isaiah: \u201cHo, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.\u201d(1408)\nAgain: \u201cI will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the\ndry ground.\u201d(1409) To which corresponds the invitation of Christ, just\nquoted: \u201cIf any man thirst, let him come unto me.\u201d(1410) He sometimes,\nhowever, receives this appellation from his purifying and cleansing\nenergy; as in Ezekiel, where the Lord promises to sprinkle clean water on\nhis people, to cleanse them from their impurities.(1411) Because he\nrestores to life and vigour, and continually supports, those whom he has\nanointed with the oil of his grape, he thence obtains the name of\n\u201cunction.\u201d(1412) Because he daily consumes the vices of our concupiscence,\nand inflames our hearts with the love of God and the pursuit of\npiety,\u2014from these effects he is justly called \u201cfire.\u201d(1413) Lastly, he is\ndescribed to us as a \u201cfountain,\u201d whence we receive all the emanation of\nheavenly riches; and as \u201cthe hand of God,\u201d by which he exerts his power;\nbecause by the breath of his power he inspires us with Divine life, so\nthat we are not now actuated from ourselves, but directed by his agency\nand influence; so that if there be any good in us, it is the fruit of his\ngrace, whereas our characters without him are darkness of mind and\nperverseness of heart. It has, indeed, already been clearly stated, that\ntill our minds are fixed on the Spirit, Christ remains of no value to us;\nbecause we look at him as an object of cold speculation without us, and\ntherefore at a great distance from us. But we know that he benefits none\nbut those who have him for their \u201chead\u201d and \u201celder brother,\u201d and who have\n\u201cput him on.\u201d(1414) This union alone renders his advent in the character\nof a Saviour available to us. We learn the same truth from that sacred\nmarriage, by which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone,\nand therefore one with him.(1415) It is only by his Spirit that he unites\nhimself with us; and by the grace and power of the same Spirit we are made\nhis members; that he may keep us under himself, and we may mutually enjoy\nhim.\n\nIV. But faith, being his principal work, is the object principally\nreferred to in the most frequent expressions of his power and operation;\nbecause it is the only medium by which he leads us into the light of the\ngospel; according to the declaration of John, that \u201cChrist gave power (or\nprivilege) to become the sons of God to them that believed on his name;\nwhich were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the\nwill of man, but of God;\u201d(1416) where, opposing God to flesh and blood, he\nasserts the reception of Christ by faith, by those who would otherwise\nremain unbelievers, to be a supernatural gift. Similar to which is this\nanswer of Christ: \u201cFlesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my\nFather, which is in heaven;\u201d(1417) which I now merely mention because I\nhave elsewhere treated it at large. Similar also is the assertion of Paul,\nthat the Ephesians \u201cwere sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.\u201d(1418)\nFor this shows, that there is an eternal teacher, by whose agency the\npromise of salvation, which otherwise would only strike the air, or at\nmost our ears, penetrates into our minds. Similar also is his remark, that\nthe Thessalonians were \u201cchosen by God through sanctification of the\nSpirit, and belief of the truth;\u201d(1419) by which connection, he briefly\nsuggests, that faith itself proceeds only from the Spirit. John expresses\nthis in plainer terms: \u201cWe know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which\nhe hath given us.\u201d(1420) Again: \u201cHereby know we that we dwell in him, and\nhe in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.\u201d(1421) Therefore Christ\npromised to send to his disciples \u201cthe Spirit of truth, whom the world\ncannot receive,\u201d(1422) that they might be capable of attaining heavenly\nwisdom. He ascribes to him the peculiar office of suggesting to their\nminds all the oral instructions which he had given them. For in vain would\nthe light present itself to the blind, unless this Spirit of understanding\nwould open their mental eyes; so that he may be justly called the key with\nwhich the treasures of the kingdom of heaven are unlocked to us; and his\nillumination constitutes our mental eyes to behold them. It is therefore\nthat Paul so highly commends the ministry of the Spirit;(1423) because the\ninstructions of preachers would produce no benefit, did not Christ\nhimself, the internal teacher, by his Spirit, draw to him those who were\ngiven him by the Father.(1424) Therefore, as we have stated, that complete\nsalvation is found in the person of Christ, so, to make us partakers of\nit, he \u201cbaptizes us with the Holy Spirit and with fire,\u201d(1425)\nenlightening us into the faith of his Gospel, regenerating us so that we\nbecome new creatures, and, purging us from profane impurities, consecrates\nus as holy temples to God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. Faith Defined, And Its Properties Described.\n\n\nAll these things will be easily understood when we have given a clearer\ndefinition of faith, that the reader may perceive its nature and\nimportance. But it will be proper to recall to his remembrance, what has\nbeen already stated; that God has given us his law as the rule of our\nconduct, and that, if we are guilty of even the smallest breach of it, we\nare exposed to the dreadful punishment of eternal death, which he\ndenounces. Again, that since it is not only difficult, but entirely above\nour strength, and beyond the utmost extent of our ability, to fulfil the\nlaw as he requires,\u2014if we only view ourselves, and consider what we have\ndemerited, we have not the least hope left, but, as persons rejected by\nGod, are on the verge of eternal perdition. In the third place, it has\nbeen explained, that there is but one method of deliverance, by which we\ncan be extricated from such a direful calamity; that is, the appearance of\nChrist the Redeemer, by whose means our heavenly Father, commiserating us\nin his infinite goodness and mercy, has been pleased to relieve us, if we\nembrace this mercy with a sincere faith, and rely on it with a constant\nhope. But we must now examine the nature of this faith, by which all who\nare the adopted sons of God enter on the possession of the heavenly\nkingdom; since it is certain, that not every opinion, nor even every\npersuasion, is equal to the accomplishment of so great a work. And we\nought to be the more cautious and diligent in our meditations and\ninquiries on the genuine property of faith, in proportion to the\npernicious tendency of the mistakes of multitudes in the present age on\nthis subject. For a great part of the world, when they hear the word\n_faith_, conceive it to be nothing more than a common assent to the\nevangelical history. And even the disputes of the schools concerning\nfaith, by simply styling God the object of it, (as I have elsewhere\nobserved,) rather mislead miserable souls by a vain speculation, than\ndirect them to the proper mark. For, since God \u201cdwelleth in the light,\nwhich no man can approach unto,\u201d(1426) there is a necessity for the\ninterposition of Christ, as the medium of access to him. Whence he calls\nhimself \u201cthe light of the world,\u201d(1427) and in another place, \u201cthe way,\nand the truth, and the life;\u201d because \u201cno man cometh unto the Father,\u201d who\nis the fountain of life, \u201cbut by him;\u201d(1428) because he alone knows the\nFather, and reveals him to believers.(1429)\n\nFor this reason Paul asserts, that he esteemed nothing worthy of being\nknown but Jesus Christ;(1430) and in the twentieth chapter of the Acts\ndeclares, that he had preached faith in Christ; and in another place, he\nintroduces Christ speaking in the following manner: \u201cI send thee unto the\nGentiles, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among\nthem which are sanctified by faith, that is in me.\u201d(1431) This apostle\ntells us, that the glory of God is visible to us in his person, or (which\nconveys the same idea) that \u201cthe light of the knowledge of the glory of\nGod\u201d shines \u201cin his face.\u201d(1432) It is true, that faith relates to the one\nGod; but there must also be added a knowledge of Jesus Christ, whom he has\nsent.(1433) For God himself would be altogether concealed from us, if we\nwere not illuminated by the brightness of Christ. For this purpose the\nFather has deposited all his treasures with his only begotten Son, that he\nmight reveal himself in him; and that, by such a communication of\nblessings, he might express a true image of his glory. For as it has been\nobserved, that we require to be drawn by the Spirit, that we may be\nexcited to seek Christ, so we should also be apprized, that the invisible\nFather is to be sought only in this image. On which subject, Augustine,\ntreating of the object of faith, beautifully remarks, \u201cthat we ought to\nknow whither we should go, and in what way;\u201d and immediately after he\nconcludes, \u201cthat he who unites Deity and humanity in one person, is the\nway most secure from all errors; for that it is God towards whom we tend,\nand man by whom we go; but that both together can be found only in\nChrist.\u201d Nor does Paul, when he speaks of faith in God, intend to subvert\nwhat he so frequently inculcates concerning faith, whose stability is\nwholly in Christ. And Peter most suitably connects them together, when he\nsays, that \u201cby him we believe in God.\u201d(1434)\n\nII. This evil, then, as well as innumerable others, must be imputed to the\nschoolmen, who have, as it were, concealed Christ, by drawing a veil over\nhim; whereas, unless our views be immediately and steadily directed to\nhim, we shall always be wandering through labyrinths without end. They not\nonly, by their obscure definition, diminish, and almost annihilate, all\nthe importance of faith, but have fabricated the notion of implicit faith,\na term with which they have honoured the grossest ignorance, and most\nperniciously deluded the miserable multitude. Indeed, to express the fact\nmore truly and plainly, this notion has not only buried the true faith in\noblivion, but has entirely destroyed it. Is this faith\u2014to understand\nnothing, but obediently to submit our understanding to the Church? Faith\nconsists not in ignorance, but in knowledge; and that not only of God, but\nalso of the Divine will. For we do not obtain salvation by our promptitude\nto embrace as truth whatever the Church may have prescribed, or by our\ntransferring to her the province of inquiry and of knowledge. But when we\nknow God to be a propitious Father to us, through the reconciliation\neffected by Christ, and that Christ is given to us for righteousness,\nsanctification, and life,\u2014by this knowledge, I say, not by renouncing our\nunderstanding, we obtain an entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For, when\nthe apostle says, that \u201cwith the heart man believeth unto righteousness,\nand with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,\u201d(1435) he indicates,\nthat it is not sufficient for a man implicitly to credit what he neither\nunderstands, nor even examines; but he requires an explicit knowledge of\nthe Divine goodness, in which our righteousness consists.\n\nIII. I do not deny (such is the ignorance with which we are enveloped)\nthat many things are very obscure to us at present, and will continue to\nbe so, till we shall have cast off the burden of the flesh, and arrived\nnearer to the presence of God. On such subjects, nothing would be more\nproper than a suspension of judgment, and a firm resolution to maintain\nunity with the Church. But that ignorance combined with humility should,\nunder this pretext, be dignified with the appellation of Faith, is\nextremely absurd. For faith consists in a knowledge of God and of\nChrist,(1436) not in reverence for the Church. And we see what a labyrinth\nthey have fabricated by this notion of theirs, so that the ignorant and\ninexperienced, without any discrimination, eagerly embrace as oracular\nevery thing obtruded upon them under the name of the Church; sometimes\neven the most monstrous errors. This inconsiderate credulity, though it be\nthe certain precipice of ruin, is, nevertheless, excused by them on the\nplea that it credits nothing definitively, but with this condition\nannexed, if such be the faith of the Church. Thus they pretend that truth\nis held in error, light in darkness, and true knowledge in ignorance. But,\nnot to occupy any more time in refuting them, we only admonish the reader\nto compare their doctrine with ours; for the perspicuity of the truth will\nof itself furnish a sufficient refutation. For the question with them is\nnot, whether faith be yet involved in many relics of ignorance, but they\npositively assert, that persons are possessed of true faith, who are\ncharmed with their ignorance, and even indulge it, provided they assent to\nthe authority and judgment of the Church concerning things unknown; as if\nthe Scripture did not universally inculcate that knowledge is united with\nfaith.\n\nIV. We grant, that during our pilgrimage in the world, our faith is\nimplicit, not only because many things are yet hidden from our view, but\nbecause our knowledge of every thing is very imperfect, in consequence of\nthe clouds of error by which we are surrounded. For the greatest wisdom of\nthose who are most perfect, is to improve, and to press forward with\npatient docility. Therefore Paul exhorts the faithful, if they differ from\neach other on any subject, to wait for further revelation.(1437) And\nexperience teaches us, that till we are divested of the flesh, our\nknowledge falls far short of what might be wished; in reading also, many\nobscure passages daily occur, which convince us of our ignorance. With\nthis barrier God restrains us within the bounds of modesty, assigning to\nevery one a measure of faith, that even the most learned teacher may be\nready to learn. We may observe eminent examples of this implicit faith in\nthe disciples of Christ, before they were fully enlightened. We see with\nwhat difficulty they imbibed the first rudiments; how they hesitated even\nat the most minute particulars; what inconsiderable advances they made\neven while hanging on the lips of their Master; and when they ran to the\ngrave at the intelligence of the women, his resurrection was like a dream\nto them. The testimony already borne by Christ to their possession of\nfaith, forbids us to say that they were entirely destitute of it; indeed,\nif they had not been persuaded that Christ would rise from the dead, they\nwould have felt no further concern about him. The women were not induced\nby superstition to embalm with spices the body of a deceased man, of whose\nlife there was no hope; but though they credited his declarations, whose\nveracity they well knew, yet the ignorance, which still occupied their\nminds, involved their faith in darkness, so that they were almost lost in\nastonishment. Whence also they are said at length to have believed, when\nthey saw the words of Christ verified by facts; not that their faith then\ncommenced, but the seed of faith, which had been latent, and as it were\ndead in their hearts, then shot forth with additional vigour. They had\ntherefore a true but an implicit faith, because they received Christ with\nreverence as their only teacher: being taught by him, they were persuaded\nthat he was the author of their salvation; and they believed that he came\nfrom heaven, that through the grace of the Father he might assemble all\nhis disciples there. But we need not seek a more familiar proof of this\npoint, than that some portion of unbelief is always mixed with faith in\nevery Christian.\n\nV. We may also style that an implicit faith, which in strict propriety is\nnothing but a preparation for faith. The evangelists relate that many\nbelieved, who, only being filled with admiration at the miracles of\nChrist, proceeded no further than a persuasion that he was the promised\nMessiah, although they had little or no knowledge of evangelical doctrine.\nSuch reverence, which induced them cheerfully to submit themselves to\nChrist, is dignified with the title of faith, of which, however, it was\nmerely the commencement. Thus the nobleman, or courtier, who believed the\npromise of Christ concerning the healing of his son, when he returned to\nhis house,(1438) according to the testimony of the evangelist, believed\nagain; that is, first he esteemed as an oracle what he had heard from the\nlips of Christ; but afterwards he devoted himself to his authority to\nreceive his doctrine. It must be understood, however, that he was docile\nand ready to learn; that the word _believe_, in the first place, denotes a\nparticular faith; but in the second place, it numbers him among the\ndisciples who had given their names to Christ. John gives us a similar\nexample in the Samaritans, who believed the report of the woman, so as to\nrun with eagerness to Christ; but who, after having heard him, said to the\nwoman, \u201cNow we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard him\nourselves, and know, that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the\nworld.\u201d(1439) Hence it appears, that persons not yet initiated into the\nfirst elements, but only inclined to obedience, are called believers; not,\nindeed, with strict propriety, but because God, in his goodness,\ndistinguishes that pious disposition with such a great honour. But this\ndocility, connected with a desire of improvement, is very remote from that\ngross ignorance which stupefies those who are content with such an\nimplicit faith as the Papists have invented. For if Paul severely condemns\nthose who are \u201cever learning, yet never come to the knowledge of the\ntruth,\u201d(1440) how much greater ignominy do they deserve who make it their\nstudy to know nothing!\n\nVI. This, then, is the true knowledge of Christ\u2014to receive him as he is\noffered by the Father, that is, invested with his gospel; for, as he is\nappointed to be the object of our faith, so we cannot advance in the right\nway to him, without the guidance of the gospel. The gospel certainly opens\nto us those treasures of grace, without which Christ would profit us\nlittle. Thus Paul connects faith as an inseparable concomitant with\ndoctrine, where he says, \u201cYe have not so learned Christ; if so be ye have\nbeen taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.\u201d(1441) Yet I do not so far\nrestrict faith to the gospel, but that I admit Moses and the prophets to\nhave delivered what was sufficient for its establishment; but because the\ngospel exhibits a fuller manifestation of Christ, it is justly styled by\nPaul, \u201cthe words of faith and of good doctrine.\u201d(1442) For the same\nreason, in another place, he represents the law as abolished by the coming\nof faith;(1443) comprehending under this term the new kind of teaching, by\nwhich Christ, since his appearance as our Master, has given a brighter\ndisplay of the mercy of the Father, and a more explicit testimony\nconcerning our salvation. The more easy and convenient method for us will\nbe, to descend regularly from the genus to the species. In the first\nplace, we must be apprized, that faith has a perpetual relation to the\nword, and can no more be separated from it, than the rays from the sun,\nwhence they proceed. Therefore God proclaims by Isaiah, \u201cHear, and your\nsouls shall live.\u201d(1444) And that the word is the fountain of faith, is\nevident from this language of John: \u201cThese are written, that ye might\nbelieve.\u201d(1445) The Psalmist also, intending to exhort the people to\nfaith, says, \u201cTo\u2010day, if ye will hear his voice;\u201d(1446) and to hear,\ngenerally means to believe. Lastly, it is not without reason that in\nIsaiah, God distinguishes the children of the Church from strangers, by\nthis character, that they shall all be his disciples, and be taught by\nhim;(1447) for, if this were a benefit common to all, why should he\naddress himself to a few? Correspondent with this is the general use of\nthe words \u201cbelievers,\u201d and \u201cdisciples,\u201d as synonymous, by the evangelists,\non all occasions, and by Luke in particular, very frequently in the Acts\nof the Apostles; in the ninth chapter of which, he extends the latter\nepithet even to a woman. Wherefore, if faith decline in the smallest\ndegree from this object, towards which it ought to be directed, it no\nlonger retains its own nature, but becomes an uncertain credulity, and an\nerroneous excursion of the mind. The same Divine word is the foundation by\nwhich faith is sustained and supported, from which it cannot be moved\nwithout an immediate downfall. Take away the word, then, and there will be\nno faith left. We are not here disputing whether the ministry of men be\nnecessary to disseminate the word of God, by which faith is produced,\nwhich we shall discuss in another place; but we assert, that the word\nitself, however it may be conveyed to us, is like a mirror, in which faith\nmay behold God. Whether, therefore, God in this instance use the agency of\nmen, or whether he operate solely by his own power, he always discovers\nhimself by his word to those whom he designs to draw to himself.(1448)\nWhence Paul defines faith as an obedience rendered to the gospel, and\npraises the service of faith.(1449) For the apprehension of faith is not\nconfined to our knowing that there is a God, but chiefly consists in our\nunderstanding what is his disposition towards us. For it is not of so much\nimportance to us to know what he is in himself, as what he is willing to\nbe to us. We find, therefore, that faith is a knowledge of the will of God\nrespecting us, received from his word. And the foundation of this is a\nprevious persuasion of the Divine veracity; any doubt of which being\nentertained in the mind, the authority of the word will be dubious and\nweak, or rather it will be of no authority at all. Nor is it sufficient to\nbelieve that the veracity of God is incapable of deception or falsehood,\nunless you also admit, as beyond all doubt, that whatever proceeds from\nhim is sacred and inviolable truth.\n\nVII. But as the human heart is not excited to faith by every word of God,\nwe must further inquire what part of the word it is, with which faith is\nparticularly concerned. God declared to Adam, \u201cThou shalt surely\ndie;\u201d(1450) and to Cain, \u201cThe voice of thy brother\u2019s blood crieth unto me\nfrom the ground;\u201d(1451) but these declarations are so far from being\nadapted to the establishment of faith, that of themselves they can only\nshake it. We do not deny that it is the office of faith to subscribe to\nthe truth of God, whatever be the time, the nature, or the manner of his\ncommunications; but our present inquiry is only, what faith finds in the\nDivine word, upon which to rest its dependence and confidence. When our\nconscience beholds nothing but indignation and vengeance, how shall it not\ntremble with fear? And if God be the object of its terror, how should it\nnot fly from him? But faith ought to seek God, not to fly from him. It\nappears, then, that we have not yet a complete definition of faith; since\na knowledge of the Divine will indefinitely, ought not to be accounted\nfaith. But suppose, instead of will,\u2014the declaration of which is often\nproductive of fear and sorrow,\u2014we substitute benevolence or mercy. This\nwill certainly bring us nearer to the nature of faith. For we are allured\nto seek God, after we have learned that salvation is laid up for us with\nhim; which is confirmed to us by his declaring it to be the object of his\ncare and affection. Therefore we need a promise of grace, to assure us\nthat he is our propitious Father; since we cannot approach to him without\nit, and it is upon that alone that the human heart can securely depend.\nFor this reason, in the Psalms, mercy and truth are generally united, as\nbeing closely connected; because it would be of no avail for us to know\nthe veracity of God, if he did not allure us to himself by his mercy; nor\nshould we embrace his mercy, if he did not offer it with his own mouth. \u201cI\nhave declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy\nloving\u2010kindness and thy truth. Let thy loving\u2010kindness and thy truth\ncontinually preserve me.\u201d(1452) Again: \u201cThy mercy, O Lord, is in the\nheavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.\u201d(1453) Again: \u201cAll\nthe paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his\ncovenant.\u201d(1454) Again: \u201cHis merciful kindness is great towards us; and\nthe truth of the Lord endureth for ever.\u201d(1455) Again: \u201cI will praise thy\nname for thy loving\u2010kindness, and for thy truth.\u201d(1456) I forbear to quote\nwhat we read in the prophets to the same purport, that God is merciful and\nfaithful in his promises. For it will be temerity to conclude that God is\npropitious to us, unless he testify concerning himself, and anticipate us\nby his invitation, that his will respecting us may be neither ambiguous\nnor obscure. But we have already seen, that Christ is the only pledge of\nhis love, without whom the tokens of his hatred and wrath are manifest\nboth above and below. Now, since the knowledge of the Divine goodness will\nnot be attended with much advantage, unless it lead us to rely upon it, we\nmust exclude that apprehension of it which is mixed with doubts, which is\nnot uniform and steady, but wavering and undecided. Now, the human mind,\nblinded and darkened as it is, is very far from being able to penetrate\nand attain to a knowledge of the Divine will; and the heart also,\nfluctuating in perpetual hesitation, is far from continuing unshaken in\nthat persuasion. Therefore our mind must be illuminated, and our heart\nestablished by some exterior power, that the word of God may obtain full\ncredit with us. Now, we shall have a complete definition of faith, if we\nsay, that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the Divine benevolence\ntowards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in\nChrist, is both revealed to our minds, and confirmed to our hearts, by the\nHoly Spirit.\n\nVIII. But before I proceed any further, it will be necessary to make some\npreliminary observations, for the solution of difficulties, which\notherwise might prove obstacles in the way of the reader.\n\nAnd first, we must refute the nugatory distinction, which prevails in the\nschools, of formal and informal faith. For they imagine, that such as are\nnot impressed with any fear of God, or with any sense of piety, believe\nall that is necessary to be known in order to salvation; as though the\nHoly Spirit, in illuminating our hearts to faith, were not a witness to us\nof our adoption. Yet, in opposition to the whole tenor of Scripture, they\npresumptuously dignify such a persuasion, destitute of the fear of God,\nwith the name of faith. We need not contend with this definition any\nfurther than by simply describing the nature of faith, as it is\nrepresented in the Divine word. And this will clearly evince the ignorance\nand insipidity of their clamour concerning it. I have treated it in part\nalready, and shall subjoin what remains in its proper place. At present, I\naffirm, that a greater absurdity than this figment of theirs, cannot\npossibly be imagined. They maintain faith to be a mere assent, with which\nevery despiser of God may receive as true whatever is contained in the\nScripture. But first it should be examined, whether every man acquires\nfaith for himself by his own power, or whether it is by faith that the\nHoly Spirit becomes the witness of adoption. They betray puerile folly,\ntherefore, in inquiring whether faith, which is formed by the\nsuperaddition of a quality, be the same, or whether it be a new and\ndifferent faith. It clearly appears, that while they have been trifling in\nthis manner, they never thought of the peculiar gift of the Spirit; for\nthe commencement of faith contains in it the reconciliation by which man\ndraws near to God. But, if they would duly consider that declaration of\nPaul, \u201cWith the heart man believeth unto righteousness,\u201d(1457) they would\ncease their trifling about this superadded quality. If we had only this\none reason, it ought to be sufficient to terminate the controversy\u2014that\nthe assent which we give to the Divine word, as I have partly suggested\nbefore, and shall again more largely repeat, is from the heart rather than\nthe head, and from the affections rather than the understanding. For which\nreason it is called \u201cthe obedience of faith,\u201d(1458) to which the Lord\nprefers no other obedience; because nothing is more precious to him than\nhis own truth; which, according to the testimony of John the\nBaptist,(1459) believers, as it were, subscribe and seal. As this is by no\nmeans a dubious point, we conclude at once, that it is an absurdity to\nsay, that faith is formed by the addition of a pious affection to an\nassent of the mind; whereas, even this assent consists in a pious\naffection, and is so described in the Scriptures. But another argument\noffers itself, which is still plainer. Since faith accepts Christ, as he\nis offered to us by the Father; and he is offered, not only for\nrighteousness, remission of sins, and peace, but also for sanctification\nand as a fountain of living water; it is certain, that no man can ever\nknow him aright, unless he at the same time receive the sanctification of\nthe Spirit. Or, if any one would wish it to be more clearly expressed,\nFaith consists in a knowledge of Christ. Christ cannot be known without\nthe sanctification of his Spirit. Consequently, faith is absolutely\ninseparable from a pious affection.\n\nIX. This passage of Paul, \u201cThough I have all faith, so that I could remove\nmountains, and have not charity, I am nothing,\u201d(1460) is generally adduced\nby them to support the notion of an informal faith unaccompanied with\ncharity; but they overlook the sense in which the apostle uses the word\n\u201cfaith\u201d in this place. For having, in the preceding chapter, treated of\nthe various gifts of the Spirit, among which he has enumerated \u201cdivers\nkinds of tongues, the working of miracles and prophecy,\u201d(1461) and having\nexhorted the Corinthians to \u201ccovet earnestly the best gifts,\u201d from which\nthe greatest benefit and advantage would accrue to the whole body of the\nChurch, he adds, \u201cyet show I unto you a more excellent way;\u201d implying,\nthat all such gifts, whatever be their intrinsic excellence, are yet to be\ndeemed worthless, unless they be subservient to charity; for that, being\ngiven for the edification of the Church, if not employed for that purpose,\nthey lose their beauty and value. To prove this, he particularly specifies\nthem, repeating the same gifts, which he had before enumerated, but under\nother names. He uses the word \u201cfaith\u201d to denote what he had before called\npowers, (\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, _potestates_, _virtutes_,) that is, a power of working\nmiracles. This, then, whether it be called power or faith, being a\nparticular gift of God, which any impious man may both possess and abuse,\nas the gift of tongues, or prophecy, or other gifts, we need not wonder if\nit be separated from charity. But the mistake of such persons arises\nwholly from this\u2014that though the word \u201cfaith\u201d is used in many senses, not\nobserving this diversity of signification, they argue as if it had always\nthe same meaning. The passage which they adduce from James in support of\nthe same error, shall be discussed in another place. Now, although, for\nthe sake of instruction, when we design to show the nature of that\nknowledge of God, which is possessed by the impious, we allow that there\nare various kinds of faith, yet we acknowledge and preach only one faith\nin the pious, according to the doctrine of the Scripture. Many men\ncertainly believe that there is a God; they admit the evangelical history\nand the other parts of Scripture to be true; just as we form an opinion of\ntransactions which are narrated as having occurred in former times, or of\nwhich we have ourselves been spectators. There are some who go further;\nesteeming the word of God as an undoubted revelation from heaven, not\nwholly disregarding its precepts, and being in some measure affected both\nby its denunciations and by its promises. To such persons, indeed, faith\nis attributed; but by a catachresis, a tropical or improper form of\nexpression; because they do not with open impiety resist, or reject, or\ncontemn the word of God, but rather exhibit some appearance of obedience\nto it.\n\nX. But this shadow or image of faith, as it is of no importance, so is\nunworthy of the name of faith; its great distance from the substantial\ntruth of which, though we shall show more at large hereafter, there can be\nno objection to its being briefly pointed out here. Simon Magus(1462) is\nsaid to have believed, who, nevertheless, just after, betrays his\nunbelief. When faith is attributed to him, we do not apprehend, with some,\nthat he merely pretended to it with his lips, while he had none in his\nheart; but we rather think, that being overcome with the majesty of the\ngospel, he did exercise a kind of faith, and perceived Christ to be the\nauthor of life and salvation, so as freely to profess himself one of his\nfollowers. Thus, in the Gospel of Luke, those persons are said to believe\nfor a time, in whom the seed of the word is prematurely choked before it\nfructifies, and those in whom it takes no root, but soon dries up and\nperishes. We doubt not but such persons, being attracted with some taste\nof the word, receive it with avidity, and begin to perceive something of\nits Divine power; so that by the fallacious counterfeit of faith, they\nimpose not only on the eyes of men, but even on their own minds. For they\npersuade themselves, that the reverence which they show for the word of\nGod, is real piety; supposing that there is no impiety but a manifest and\nacknowledged abuse or contempt of it. But, whatever be the nature of that\nassent, it penetrates not to the heart, so as to fix its residence there;\nand though it sometimes appears to have shot forth roots, yet there is no\nlife in them. The heart of man has so many recesses of vanity, and so many\nretreats of falsehood, and is so enveloped with fraudulent hypocrisy, that\nit frequently deceives even himself. But let them, who glory in such\nphantoms of faith, know, that in this respect they are not at all superior\nto devils. Persons of the former description, who hear and understand\nwithout any emotion those things, the knowledge of which makes devils\ntremble, are certainly far inferior to the fallen spirits; and the others\nare equal to them in this respect\u2014that the sentiments with which they are\nimpressed, finally terminate in terror and consternation.(1463)\n\nXI. I know that it appears harsh to some, when faith is attributed to the\nreprobate; since Paul affirms it to be the fruit of election. But this\ndifficulty is easily solved; for, though none are illuminated to faith, or\ntruly feel the efficacy of the gospel, but such as are preordained to\nsalvation, yet experience shows, that the reprobate are sometimes affected\nwith emotions very similar to those of the elect, so that, in their own\nopinion, they in no respect differ from the elect. Wherefore, it is not at\nall absurd, that a taste of heavenly gifts is ascribed to them by the\napostle, and a temporary faith by Christ:(1464) not that they truly\nperceive the energy of spiritual grace and clear light of faith, but\nbecause the Lord, to render their guilt more manifest and inexcusable,\ninsinuates himself into their minds, as far as his goodness can be enjoyed\nwithout the Spirit of adoption. If any one object, that there remains,\nthen, no further evidence by which the faithful can certainly judge of\ntheir adoption, I reply, that although there is a great similitude and\naffinity between the elect of God and those who are endued with a frail\nand transitory faith, yet the elect possess that confidence, which Paul\ncelebrates, so as boldly to \u201ccry, Abba, Father.\u201d(1465) Therefore, as God\nregenerates for ever the elect alone with incorruptible seed, so that the\nseed of life planted in their hearts never perishes, so he firmly seals\nwithin them the grace of his adoption, that it may be confirmed and\nratified to their minds. But this by no means prevents that inferior\noperation of the Spirit from exerting itself even in the reprobate. In the\nmean time the faithful are taught to examine themselves with solicitude\nand humility, lest carnal security insinuate itself, instead of the\nassurance of faith. Besides, the reprobate have only a confused perception\nof grace, so that they embrace the shadow rather than the substance;\nbecause the Spirit properly seals remission of sins in the elect alone,\nand they apply it by a special faith to their own benefit. Yet the\nreprobate are justly said to believe that God is propitious to them,\nbecause they receive the gift of reconciliation, though in a confused and\ntoo indistinct manner: not that they are partakers of the same faith or\nregeneration with the sons of God, but because they appear, under the\ndisguise of hypocrisy, to have the principle of faith in common with them.\nNor do I deny, that God so far enlightens their minds, that they discover\nhis grace; but he so distinguishes that perception from the peculiar\ntestimony, which he gives to his elect, that they never attain any solid\neffect and enjoyment. For he does not, therefore, show himself propitious\nto them, by truly delivering them from death, and receiving them under his\nprotection; but he only manifests to them present mercy. But he vouchsafes\nto the elect alone, the living root of faith, that they may persevere even\nto the end. Thus we have refuted the objection, that if God truly\ndiscovers his grace, it remains for ever; because nothing prevents God\nfrom illuminating some with a present perception of his grace, which\nafterwards vanishes away.\n\nXII. Moreover, though faith is a knowledge of the benevolence of God\ntowards us, and a certain persuasion of his veracity, yet it is not to be\nwondered at, that the subjects of these temporary impressions lose the\nsense of Divine love, which, notwithstanding its affinity to faith, is yet\nwidely different from it. The will of God, I confess, is immutable, and\nhis truth always consistent with itself. But I deny that the reprobate\never go so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation, which the\nScripture confines to the elect. I deny, therefore, that they either\napprehend the will of God, as it is immutable, or embrace his truth with\nconstancy; because they rest in a fugitive sentiment. Thus a tree, not\nplanted deeply enough to shoot forth living roots, in process of time\nwithers; though for some years it may produce not only leaves and\nblossoms, but even fruits. Finally, as the defection of the first man was\nsufficient to obliterate the Divine image from his mind and soul, so we\nneed not wonder if God enlightens the reprobate with some beams of his\ngrace, which he afterwards suffers to be extinguished. Nor does any thing\nprevent him from slightly tincturing some with the knowledge of his\ngospel, and thoroughly imbuing others with it. It must, nevertheless, be\nremembered, that how diminutive and weak soever faith may be in the elect,\nyet, as the Spirit of God is a certain pledge and seal to them of their\nadoption, his impression can never be erased from their hearts; but that\nthe reprobate have only a few scattered rays of light, which are\nafterwards lost; yet that the Spirit is not chargeable with deception,\nbecause he infuses no life into the seed which he drops in their hearts,\nthat it may remain for ever incorruptible, as in the elect. I go still\nfurther; for since it is evident from the tenor of the Scripture, and from\ndaily experience, that the reprobate are sometimes affected with a sense\nof Divine grace, some desire of mutual love must necessarily be excited in\ntheir hearts. Thus Saul had for a time a pious disposition to love God,\nfrom whom experiencing paternal kindness, he was allured by the charms of\nhis goodness. But as the persuasion of the paternal love of God is not\nradically fixed in the reprobate, so they love him not reciprocally with\nthe sincere affection of children, but are influenced by a mercenary\ndisposition; for the spirit of love was given to Christ alone, that he\nmight instil it into his members. And this observation of Paul certainly\nextends to none but the elect: \u201cThe love of God is shed abroad in our\nhearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us;\u201d(1466) the same love,\nwhich generates that confidence of invocation which I have before\nmentioned. Thus, on the contrary, we see that God is wonderfully angry\nwith his children, whom he ceases not to love: not that he really hates\nthem, but because he designs to terrify them with a sense of his wrath, to\nhumble their carnal pride, to shake off their indolence, and to excite\nthem to repentance. Therefore they apprehend him to be both angry with\nthem, or at least with their sins, and propitious to them at the same\ntime; for they sincerely deprecate his wrath, and yet resort to him for\nsuccour with tranquillity and confidence. Hence it appears, that faith is\nnot hypocritically counterfeited by some, who nevertheless are destitute\nof true faith; but, while they are hurried away with a sudden impetuosity\nof zeal, they deceive themselves by a false opinion. Nor is it to be\ndoubted, that indolence preoccupies them, and prevents them from properly\nexamining their hearts as they ought to do. It is probable that those\npersons were of this description, to whom, according to John, \u201cJesus did\nnot commit himself,\u201d notwithstanding that they believed in him, \u201cbecause\nhe knew all men: he knew what was in man.\u201d(1467) If multitudes did not\ndepart from the common faith, (I style it common, because there is a great\nsimilitude and affinity between temporary faith and that which is living\nand perpetual,) Christ would not have said to his disciples, \u201cIf ye\ncontinue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know\nthe truth, and the truth shall make you free.\u201d(1468) For he addresses\nthose who have embraced his doctrine, and exhorts them to an increase of\nfaith, that the light which they have received may not be extinguished by\ntheir own supineness. Therefore Paul claims faith as peculiar to the\nelect,(1469) indicating that many decay, because they have had no living\nroot. Thus also Christ says in Matthew, \u201cEvery plant, which my heavenly\nFather hath not planted, shall be rooted up.\u201d(1470) There is a grosser\ndeception in others, who are not ashamed to attempt to deceive both God\nand men. James inveighs against this class of men, who impiously profane\nfaith by hypocritical pretensions to it.(1471) Nor would Paul require from\nthe children of God, a \u201cfaith unfeigned,\u201d(1472) but because multitudes\npresumptuously arrogate to themselves what they possess not, and with\ntheir vain pretences deceive others, and sometimes even themselves.\nTherefore he compares a good conscience to a vessel in which faith is\nkept; because many, \u201chaving put away a good conscience, concerning faith\nhave made shipwreck.\u201d(1473)\n\nXIII. We must also remember the ambiguous signification of the word\n_faith_; for frequently faith signifies the sound doctrine of piety, as in\nthe place which we have just cited, and in the same Epistle, where Paul\nsays, that deacons must hold \u201cthe mystery of the faith in a pure\nconscience.\u201d(1474) Also where he predicts the apostasy of some \u201cfrom the\nfaith.\u201d(1475) But, on the contrary, he says, that Timothy had been\n\u201cnourished up in the words of faith.\u201d(1476) Again, where he says,\n\u201cavoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely\nso called; which some professing, have erred concerning the faith;\u201d(1477)\nwhom in another place he styles \u201creprobates concerning the faith.\u201d(1478)\nThus, also, when he directs Titus to \u201crebuke them, that they may be sound\nin the faith,\u201d(1479) by soundness, he means nothing more than that purity\nof doctrine, which is so liable to be corrupted and to degenerate through\nthe instability of men. Since \u201call the treasures of wisdom and knowledge\nare hidden in Christ,\u201d(1480) whom faith possesses, faith is justly\nextended to the whole summary of heavenly doctrines, with which it is\ninseparably connected. On the contrary, it is sometimes restricted to a\nparticular object; as when Matthew says, that \u201cJesus saw their\nfaith,\u201d(1481) who let down the paralytic man through the roof; and when\nChrist exclaimed respecting the centurion, \u201cI have not found so great\nfaith, no, not in Israel.\u201d(1482) But it is probable, that the centurion\nwas wholly intent on the recovery of his son, a concern for whom wholly\noccupied his mind; yet, because he was contented with the mere answer of\nChrist, without being importunate for his corporeal presence, it is on\naccount of this circumstance that his faith is so greatly extolled. And we\nhave lately shown, that Paul uses faith for the gift of miracles; which is\npossessed by those who are neither regenerated by the Spirit of God, nor\nserious worshippers of him. In another place, also, he uses it to denote\nthe instruction by which we are edified in the faith; for, when he\nsuggests that faith will be abolished, it must undoubtedly be referred to\nthe ministry of the Church, which is, at present, useful to our infirmity.\nIn these forms of expression, however, there is an evident analogy. But\nwhen the word \u201cfaith\u201d is in an improper sense transferred to a\nhypocritical profession, or to that which falsely assumes the name, it\nshould not be accounted a harsher catachresis, than when the fear of God\nis used for a corrupt and perverse worship; as when it is frequently said\nin the sacred history, that the foreign nations, which had been\ntransplanted to Samaria and its vicinity, feared the fictitious deities\nand the God of Israel; which is like confounding together heaven and\nearth. But our present inquiry is, what is that faith by which the\nchildren of God are distinguished from unbelievers, by which we invoke God\nas our Father, by which we pass from death to life, and by which Christ,\nour eternal life and salvation, dwells in us? The force and nature of it,\nI conceive, I have concisely and clearly explained.\n\nXIV. Now, let us again examine all the parts of that definition; a careful\nconsideration of which, I think, will leave nothing doubtful remaining.\nWhen we call it knowledge, we intend not such a comprehension as men\ncommonly have of those things which fall under the notice of their senses.\nFor it is so superior, that the human mind must exceed and rise above\nitself, in order to attain to it. Nor does the mind which attains it\ncomprehend what it perceives, but being persuaded of that which it cannot\ncomprehend, it understands more by the certainty of this persuasion, than\nit would comprehend of any human object by the exercise of its natural\ncapacity. Wherefore Paul beautifully expresses it in these terms: \u201cto\ncomprehend what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to\nknow the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.\u201d(1483) For he meant to\nsuggest, that what our mind apprehends by faith is absolutely infinite,\nand that this kind of knowledge far exceeds all understanding. Yet,\nbecause God has revealed to his saints the secret of his will, \u201cwhich had\nbeen hidden from ages and from generations,\u201d(1484) therefore _faith_ is in\nScripture justly styled \u201can acknowledgment;\u201d(1485) and by John,\n\u201cknowledge,\u201d when he asserts, that believers know that they are the sons\nof God.(1486) And they have indeed a certain knowledge of it; but are\nrather confirmed by a persuasion of the veracity of God, than taught by\nany demonstration of reason. The language of Paul also indicates this:\n\u201cwhilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; for we\nwalk by faith, not by sight.\u201d By this he shows that the things which we\nunderstand through faith, are at a distance from us, and beyond our sight.\nWhence we conclude, that the knowledge of faith consists more in certainty\nthan in comprehension.\n\nXV. To express the solid constancy of the persuasion, we further say, that\nit is a certain and steady knowledge. For, as faith is not content with a\ndubious and versatile opinion, so neither with an obscure and perplexed\nconception; but requires a full and fixed certainty, such as is commonly\nobtained respecting things that have been tried and proved. For unbelief\nis so deeply rooted in our hearts, and such is our propensity to it, that\nthough all men confess with the tongue, that God is faithful, no man can\npersuade himself of the truth of it, without the most arduous exertions.\nEspecially when the time of trial comes, the general indecision discloses\nthe fault which was previously concealed. Nor is it without reason that\nthe Holy Spirit asserts the authority of the Divine word in terms of such\nhigh commendation, but with a design to remedy the disease which I have\nmentioned, that the promises of God may obtain full credit with us. \u201cThe\nwords of the Lord (says David) are pure words; as silver tried in a\nfurnace of earth purified seven times.\u201d(1487) Again: \u201cThe word of the Lord\nis tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.\u201d(1488) And\nSolomon confirms the same, nearly in the same words: \u201cEvery word of God is\npure.\u201d(1489) But, as the hundred and nineteenth Psalm is almost entirely\ndevoted to this subject, it were needless to recite any more testimonies.\nWhenever God thus recommends his word to us, he, without doubt, obliquely\nreprehends our unbelief; for the design of those recommendations is no\nother than to eradicate perverse doubts from our hearts. There are also\nmany, who have such conceptions of the Divine mercy, as to receive but\nvery little consolation from it. For they are at the same time distressed\nwith an unhappy anxiety, doubting whether he will be merciful to them;\nbecause they confine within too narrow limits that clemency, of which they\nsuppose themselves to be fully persuaded. For they reflect with themselves\nthus: that his mercy is large and copious, bestowed upon many, and ready\nfor the acceptance of all; but that it is uncertain whether it will reach\nthem also, or, rather, whether they shall reach it. This thought, since it\nstops in the midst of its course, is incomplete. Therefore it does not so\nmuch confirm the mind with secure tranquillity, as disturb it with\nrestless hesitation. But very different is the meaning of \u201cfull\nassurance,\u201d (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2,) which is always attributed to faith in the\nScriptures; and which places the goodness of God, that is clearly revealed\nto us, beyond all doubt. But this cannot take place, unless we have a real\nsense and experience of its sweetness in ourselves. Wherefore the apostle\nfrom faith deduces confidence, and from confidence boldness. For this is\nhis language: \u201cIn Christ we have boldness and access, with confidence by\nthe faith of him.\u201d(1490) These words imply that we have no right faith,\nbut when we can venture with tranquillity into the Divine presence. This\nboldness arises only from a certain confidence of the Divine benevolence\nand our salvation; which is so true, that the word \u201cfaith\u201d is frequently\nused for confidence.\n\nXVI. The principal hinge on which faith turns is this\u2014that we must not\nconsider the promises of mercy, which the Lord offers, as true only to\nothers, and not to ourselves; but rather make them our own, by embracing\nthem in our hearts. Hence arises that confidence, which the same apostle\nin another place calls \u201cpeace;\u201d(1491) unless any one would rather make\npeace the effect of confidence. It is a security, which makes the\nconscience calm and serene before the Divine tribunal, and without which\nit must necessarily be harassed and torn almost asunder with tumultuous\ntrepidation, unless it happen to slumber for a moment in an oblivion of\nGod and itself. And indeed it is but for a moment; for it does not long\nenjoy that wretched oblivion, but is most dreadfully wounded by the\nremembrance, which is perpetually recurring, of the Divine judgment. In\nshort, no man is truly a believer, unless he be firmly persuaded, that God\nis a propitious and benevolent Father to him, and promise himself every\nthing from his goodness; unless he depend on the promises of the Divine\nbenevolence to him, and feel an undoubted expectation of salvation; as the\napostle shows in these words: \u201cIf we hold fast the beginning of our\nconfidence steadfast unto the end.\u201d(1492) Here he supposes, that no man\nhas a good hope in the Lord, who does not glory with confidence, in being\nan heir of the kingdom of heaven. He is no believer, I say, who does not\nrely on the security of his salvation, and confidently triumph over the\ndevil and death, as Paul teaches us in this remarkable peroration: \u201cI am\npersuaded (says he) that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor\nprincipalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, shall\nbe able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our\nLord.\u201d(1493) Thus the same apostle is of opinion, that \u201cthe eyes of our\nunderstanding\u201d are not truly \u201cenlightened,\u201d unless we discover what is the\nhope of the eternal inheritance, to which we are called.(1494) And he\nevery where inculcates, that we have no just apprehensions of the Divine\ngoodness, unless we derive from it a considerable degree of assurance.\n\nXVII. But some one will object, that the experience of believers is very\ndifferent from this; for that, in recognizing the grace of God towards\nthem, they are not only disturbed with inquietude, (which frequently\nbefalls them,) but sometimes also tremble with the most distressing\nterrors. The vehemence of temptations, to agitate their minds, is so\ngreat, that it appears scarcely compatible with that assurance of faith of\nwhich we have been speaking. We must therefore solve this difficulty, if\nwe mean to support the doctrine we have advanced. When we inculcate, that\nfaith ought to be certain and secure, we conceive not of a certainty\nattended with no doubt, or of a security interrupted by no anxiety; but we\nrather affirm, that believers have a perpetual conflict with their own\ndiffidence, and are far from placing their consciences in a placid calm,\nnever disturbed by any storms. Yet, on the other hand, we deny, however\nthey may be afflicted, that they ever fall and depart from that certain\nconfidence which they have conceived in the Divine mercy. The Scripture\nproposes no example of faith more illustrious or memorable than David,\nespecially if you consider the whole course of his life. Yet that his mind\nwas not invariably serene, appears from his innumerable complaints, of\nwhich it will be sufficient to select a few. When he rebukes his soul for\nturbulent emotions, is he not angry with his unbelief? \u201cWhy (says he) art\nthou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? Hope thou in\nGod.\u201d(1495) And, certainly, that consternation was an evident proof of\ndiffidence, as though he supposed himself to be forsaken by God. In\nanother place, also, we find a more ample confession: \u201cI said, in my\nhaste, I am cut off from before thine eyes.\u201d(1496) In another place, also,\nhe debates with himself in anxious and miserable perplexity, and even\nraises a dispute concerning the nature of God: \u201cHath God forgotten to be\ngracious? Will the Lord cast off for ever?\u201d What follows is still harsher:\n\u201cAnd I said, I must fall; these are the changes of the right hand of the\nMost High.\u201d(1497) For, in a state of despair, he consigns himself to ruin;\nand not only confesses that he is agitated with doubts, but, as vanquished\nin the conflict, considers all as lost; because God has deserted him, and\nturned to his destruction that hand which used to support him. Wherefore\nit is not without reason that he says, \u201cReturn unto thy rest, O my\nsoul;\u201d(1498) since he had experienced such fluctuations amidst the waves\nof trouble. And yet, wonderful as it is, amidst these concussions, faith\nsustains the hearts of the pious, and truly resembles the palm\u2010tree,\nrising with vigour undiminished by any burdens which may be laid upon it,\nbut which can never retard its growth; as David, when he might appear to\nbe overwhelmed, yet, chiding himself, ceased not to aspire towards God.\nIndeed, he who, contending with his own infirmity, strives in his\nanxieties to exercise faith, is already in a great measure victorious.\nWhich we may infer from such passages as this: \u201cWait on the Lord: be of\ngood courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart; wait, I say, on the\nLord.\u201d(1499) He reproves himself for timidity, and repeating the same\ntwice, confesses himself to be frequently subject to various agitations.\nIn the mean time, he is not only displeased with himself for these faults,\nbut ardently aspires towards the correction of them. Now, if we enter into\na close and correct examination of his character and conduct, and compare\nhim with Ahaz, we shall discover a considerable difference. Isaiah is sent\nto convey consolation to the anxiety of the impious and hypocritical king;\nhe addresses him in these words: \u201cTake heed, and be quiet; fear not,\u201d\n&c.(1500) But what effect had the message on him? As it had been before\nsaid, that \u201chis heart was moved as the trees of the wood are moved with\nthe wind,\u201d(1501) though he heard the promise, he ceased not to tremble.\nThis therefore is the proper reward and punishment of infidelity\u2014so to\ntremble with fear, that he who opens not the gate to himself by faith, in\nthe time of temptation departs from God; but, on the contrary, believers,\nwhom the weight of temptations bends and almost oppresses, constantly\nemerge from their distresses, though not without trouble and difficulty.\nAnd because they are conscious of their own imbecility, they pray with the\nPsalmist, \u201cTake not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth.\u201d(1502) By\nthese words we are taught, that they sometimes become dumb, as though\ntheir faith were destroyed; yet that they neither fail nor turn their\nbacks, but persevere in their conflict, and arouse their inactivity by\nprayer, that they may not be stupefied by self\u2010indulgence.\n\nXVIII. To render this intelligible, it is necessary to recur to that\ndivision of the flesh and the spirit, which we noticed in another place,\nand which most clearly discovers itself in this case. The pious heart\ntherefore perceives a division in itself, being partly affected with\ndelight, through a knowledge of the Divine goodness; partly distressed\nwith sorrow, through a sense of its own calamity; partly relying on the\npromise of the gospel; partly trembling at the evidence of its own\niniquity; partly exulting in the apprehension of life; partly alarmed by\nthe fear of death. This variation happens through the imperfection of\nfaith; since we are never so happy, during the present life, as to be\ncured of all diffidence, and entirely filled and possessed by faith. Hence\nthose conflicts, in which the diffidence which adheres to the relics of\nthe flesh, rises up in opposition to the faith formed in the heart. But\nif, in the mind of a believer, assurance be mixed with doubts, do we not\nalways come to this point, that faith consists not in a certain and clear,\nbut only in an obscure and perplexed knowledge of the Divine will\nrespecting us? Not at all. For, if we are distracted by various thoughts,\nwe are not therefore entirely divested of faith; neither, though harassed\nby the agitations of diffidence, are we therefore immerged in its abyss;\nnor, if we be shaken, are we therefore overthrown. For the invariable\nissue of this contest is, that faith at length surmounts those\ndifficulties, from which, while it is encompassed with them, it appears to\nbe in danger.\n\nXIX. Let us sum it up thus: As soon as the smallest particle of grace is\ninfused into our minds, we begin to contemplate the Divine countenance as\nnow placid, serene, and propitious to us: it is indeed a very distant\nprospect, but so clear, that we know we are not deceived. Afterwards, in\nproportion as we improve,\u2014for we ought to be continually improving by\nprogressive advances,\u2014we arrive at a nearer, and therefore more certain\nview of him, and by continual habit he becomes more familiar to us. Thus\nwe see, that a mind illuminated by the knowledge of God, is at first\ninvolved in much ignorance, which is removed by slow degrees. Yet it is\nnot prevented either by its ignorance of some things, or by its obscure\nview of what it beholds, from enjoying a clear knowledge of the Divine\nwill respecting itself, which is the first and principal exercise of\nfaith. For, as a man who is confined in a prison, into which the sun\nshines only obliquely and partially through a very small window, is\ndeprived of a full view of that luminary, yet clearly perceives its\nsplendour, and experiences its beneficial influence,\u2014thus we, who are\nbound with terrestrial and corporeal fetters, though surrounded on all\nsides with great obscurity, are nevertheless illuminated, sufficiently for\nall the purposes of real security, by the light of God shining ever so\nfeebly to discover his mercy.\n\nXX. The apostle beautifully inculcates both these ideas in various places.\nFor when he says, that \u201cwe know in part, and we prophesy in part, and see\nthrough a glass darkly,\u201d(1503) he indicates, how very slender a portion of\nthat wisdom which is truly Divine, is conferred upon us in the present\nlife. For although these words imply, not only that faith remains\nimperfect as long as we groan under the burden of the flesh, but that our\nimperfection renders it necessary for us to be unremittingly employed in\nacquiring further knowledge, yet he suggests, that it is impossible for\nour narrow capacity to comprehend that which is infinite. And this Paul\npredicates concerning the whole Church; though every individual of us is\nobstructed and retarded, by his own ignorance, from making that progress\nwhich might be wished. But what a sure and certain experience, of itself,\neven the smallest particle of faith gives us, the same apostle shows in\nanother place, where he asserts, that \u201cwe, with open face, beholding as in\na glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image.\u201d(1504)\nSuch profound ignorance must necessarily involve much doubt and\ntrepidation; especially as our hearts are, by a kind of natural instinct,\ninclined to unbelief. Besides, temptations, various and innumerable,\nfrequently assail us with great violence. Above all, our own conscience,\noppressed by its incumbent load of sin, sometimes complains and groans\nwithin itself, sometimes accuses itself, sometimes murmurs in secret, and\nsometimes is openly disturbed. Whether, therefore, adversity discover the\nwrath of God, or the conscience find in itself any reason or cause of it,\nthence unbelief derives weapons to oppose faith, which are perpetually\ndirected to this object, to persuade us, that God is angry with us, and\ninimical to us; that we may not hope for any assistance from him, but may\ndread him as our irreconcilable enemy.\n\nXXI. To sustain these attacks, faith arms and defends itself with the word\nof the Lord. And when such a temptation as this assails us,\u2014that God is\nour enemy, because he is angry with us,\u2014faith, on the contrary, objects,\nthat he is merciful even when he afflicts, because chastisement proceeds\nrather from love than from wrath. When it is pressed with this thought,\nthat God is an avenger of iniquities, it opposes the pardon provided for\nall offences, whenever the sinner makes application to the Divine\nclemency. Thus the pious mind, how strangely soever it may be agitated and\nharassed, rises at length superior to all difficulties, nor ever suffers\nits confidence in the Divine mercy to be shaken. The various disputes\nwhich exercise and fatigue it, terminate rather in the confirmation of\nthat confidence. It is a proof of this, that when the saints conceive\nthemselves to feel most the vengeance of God, they still confide their\ncomplaints to him, and when there is no appearance of his hearing them,\nthey continue to call upon him. For what end would be answered by\naddressing complaint to him from whom they expected no consolation? And\nthey would never be disposed to call upon him, unless they believed him to\nbe ready to assist them.(1505) Thus the disciples, whom Christ reprehends\nfor the weakness of their faith, complained indeed that they were\nperishing, but still they implored his assistance. Nor, when he chides\nthem on account of their weak faith, does he reject them from the number\nof his children, or class them with unbelievers; but he excites them to\ncorrect that fault. Therefore we repeat the assertion already made, that\nfaith is never eradicated from a pious heart, but continues firmly fixed,\nhowever it may be shaken, and seem to bend this way or that; that its\nlight is never so extinguished or smothered, but that it lies at least\nconcealed under embers; and that this is an evident proof, that the word,\nwhich is an incorruptible seed, produces fruit similar to itself, whose\ngerm never entirely perishes. For, though it is the last cause of despair\nthat can happen to saints, to perceive, according to their apprehension of\npresent circumstances, the hand of God lifted up for their destruction,\nyet Job asserts the extent of his hope to be such, that though he should\nbe slain by him, he would continue to trust in him.(1506) This, then, is\nthe real state of the case: Unbelief is not inwardly predominant in the\nhearts of the pious, but it assails them from without; nor do its weapons\nmortally wound them; they only molest them, or at least inflict such\nwounds as are curable. For faith, according to Paul, serves us as a\nshield, which, being opposed to hostile weapons, receives their blows, and\nentirely repels them, or at least breaks their force, so that they\npenetrate no vital part. When faith is shaken, therefore, it is just as if\na soldier, otherwise bold, were constrained, by a violent stroke of a\njavelin, to change his position and retreat a little; but when faith\nitself is wounded, it is just as if his shield were broken by a blow, yet\nnot pierced through. For the pious mind will always recover so far as to\nsay, with David, \u201cThough I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,\nI will fear no evil; for thou art with me.\u201d(1507) To walk in the gloom of\ndeath is certainly terrible; and believers, whatever degree of firmness\nthey have, cannot but dread it. But when this thought prevails, that God\nis present with them, and concerned for their salvation, fear at once\ngives way to security. But, as Augustine says, whatever powerful engines\nthe devil erects against us, when he possesses not the heart, which is the\nresidence of faith, he is kept at a distance. Thus, if we judge from the\nevent, believers not only escape in safety from every battle, so that,\nreceiving an accession of vigour, they are soon after prepared to enter\nthe field again, but we see the accomplishment of what John says, in his\ncanonical Epistle: \u201cThis is the victory that overcometh the world, even\nour faith.\u201d(1508) For he affirms, that it will be not only victorious in\none or in a few battles, or against some particular assault, but that it\nwill overcome the whole world, though it should be attacked a thousand\ntimes.\n\nXXII. There is another species of fear and trembling, by which,\nnevertheless, the assurance of faith is so far from being impaired, that\nit is more firmly established. That is, when believers, considering the\nexamples of the Divine vengeance against the impious as lessons given to\nthem, are solicitously cautious not to provoke the wrath of God against\nthemselves by the same crimes; or when, feeling their own misery, they\nlearn to place all their dependence on the Lord, without whom they\nperceive themselves to be more inconstant and transient than the wind. For\nwhen the apostle, by a representation of the punishments which the Lord\nformerly inflicted on the Israelitish nation, alarms the fears of the\nCorinthians, lest they should involve themselves in the same\ncalamities,(1509) he in no respect weakens their confidence, but shakes\noff the indolence of the flesh, by which faith is rather impaired than\nconfirmed. Nor when, from the fall of the Jews, he takes an occasion to\nexhort him that standeth to beware lest he fall,(1510) does he direct us\nto waver, as though we were uncertain of our stability; but only forbids\nall arrogance and presumptuous, overweening confidence in our own\nstrength, that the Gentiles may not proudly insult over the expelled Jews,\ninto whose place they have been received.(1511) In that passage, however,\nhe not only addresses believers, but in his discourse also includes\nhypocrites, who gloried merely in external appearance. For he admonishes\nnot men individually, but instituting a comparison between the Jews and\nthe Gentiles, after having shown that the rejection of the former was a\nrighteous punishment for their unbelief and ingratitude, he exhorts the\nlatter not to lose, by pride and haughtiness, the grace of adoption\nrecently transferred to them. But as, in the general rejection of the\nJews, there remained some of them who fell not from the covenant of\nadoption, so among the Gentiles there might possibly arise some, who,\ndestitute of true faith, would only be inflated with foolish and carnal\nconfidence, and thus abuse the goodness of God to their own ruin. But\nthough you should understand this to be spoken to the elect and believers,\nno inconvenience would result from it. For it is one thing to repress the\ntemerity, which from remaining carnality sometimes discovers itself in the\nsaints, that it may not produce vain confidence; and another to strike the\nconscience with fear, that it may not rely with full security on the mercy\nof God.\n\nXXIII. Moreover, when he teaches us to \u201cwork out our own salvation with\nfear and trembling,\u201d(1512) he only requires us to accustom ourselves, with\ngreat self\u2010humiliation, to look up to the power of the Lord. For nothing\narouses us to repose all confidence and assurance of mind on the Lord, so\nmuch as diffidence of ourselves, and anxiety arising from a consciousness\nof our own misery. In which sense, we must understand this declaration of\nthe Psalmist, \u201cI will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy,\nand in thy fear will I worship.\u201d(1513) Whence he beautifully connects the\nconfidence of faith, which relies on the mercy of God, with that religious\nfear by which we ought to be affected, whenever we come into the presence\nof the Divine Majesty, and from its splendour, discover our extreme\nimpurity. Solomon also truly pronounces, \u201cHappy is the man who feareth\nalway; but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.\u201d(1514)\nBut he intends that fear which will render us more cautious, not such as\nwould afflict and ruin us, such as, when the mind, confounded in itself,\nrecovers itself in God; dejected in itself, finds consolation in him; and\ndespairing of itself, revives with confidence in him. Wherefore nothing\nprevents believers from being distressed with fear, and at the same time\nenjoying the most serene consolation; as they now turn their eyes towards\ntheir own vanity, and now direct the attention of their mind to the truth\nof God. How can fear and faith, it will be asked, both reside in the same\nmind? Just as, on the contrary, insensibility and anxiety. For though the\nimpious endeavour to acquire a habit of insensibility, that they may not\nbe disquieted by the fear of God, the judgment of God follows them so\nclosely, that they cannot attain the object of their desires. So nothing\nprevents God from training his people to humility, that in their valiant\nwarfare they may restrain themselves within the bounds of modesty. And\nthat this was the design of the apostle appears from the context, where,\nas the cause of fear and trembling, he assigns the good pleasure of God,\nby which he gives to his people both rightly to will, and strenuously to\nperform. In the same sense we should understand this prediction: \u201cThe\nchildren of Israel shall fear the Lord and his goodness;\u201d(1515) for not\nonly piety produces a reverence of God, but also the sweetness of grace\nfills a man that is dejected in himself, with fear and admiration; causing\nhim to depend upon God, and humbly submit himself to his power.\n\nXXIV. Yet we give no encouragement to the very pestilent philosophy, begun\nto be broached by some semi\u2010Papists in the present day. For, being unable\nto defend that gross notion of faith as a doubtful opinion, which has been\ntaught in the schools, they resort to another invention, and propose a\nconfidence mixed with unbelief. They confess, that whenever we look to\nChrist, we find in him a sufficient ground of comfortable hope; but\nbecause we are always unworthy of all those blessings which are offered to\nus in Christ, they wish us to fluctuate and hesitate in the view of our\nown unworthiness. In short, they place the conscience in such a state\nbetween hope and fear, that it alternately inclines to both. They also\nconnect hope and fear together, so that when the former rises, it\ndepresses the latter, and when the latter lifts its head, the former\nfalls. Thus Satan, finding that those open engines, which he heretofore\nemployed to destroy the assurance of faith, are now no longer of any\navail, secretly endeavours to undermine it. But what kind of confidence\nwould that be, which should frequently give way to despair? If you\nconsider Christ, (say they,) salvation is certain; if you return to\nyourself, condemnation is certain. Diffidence and good hope, therefore,\nmust of necessity alternately prevail in your mind. As though we ought to\nconsider Christ as standing apart from us, and not rather as dwelling\nwithin us. For we therefore expect salvation from him, not because he\nappears to us at a great distance, but because, having ingrafted us into\nhis body, he makes us partakers not only of all his benefits, but also of\nhimself. Wherefore I thus retort their own argument: If you consider\nyourself, condemnation is certain; but since Christ, with all his\nbenefits, is communicated to you, so that all that he has becomes yours,\nand you become a member of him, and one with him,\u2014his righteousness covers\nyour sins; his salvation supersedes your condemnation; he interposes with\nhis merit, that your unworthiness may not appear in the Divine presence.\nIndeed, the truth is, that we ought by no means to separate Christ from\nus, or ourselves from him; but, with all our might, firmly to retain that\nfellowship by which he has united us to himself. Thus the apostle teaches\nus: \u201cThe body (says he) is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life\nbecause of righteousness.\u201d(1516) According to this frivolous notion of\nthese persons, he ought to have said, Christ indeed has life in himself;\nbut you, being sinners, remain obnoxious to death and condemnation. But he\nspeaks in a very different manner; for he states, that the condemnation\nwhich we demerit in ourselves is swallowed up by the salvation of Christ;\nand in confirmation of this, uses the same argument as I have adduced,\nthat Christ is not without us, but dwells within us; and not only adheres\nto us by an indissoluble connection of fellowship, but by a certain\nwonderful communion coalesces daily more and more into one body with us,\ntill he becomes altogether one with us. Nor do I deny, what I have lately\nsaid, that some interruptions of faith at times occur, as its imbecility\nis by the force of violence inclined to this or the other direction, Thus,\nin the thick gloom of temptations, its light is smothered; but, whatever\nbefalls it, it never discontinues its efforts in seeking God.\n\nXXV. Bernard reasons in a similar manner, when he professedly discusses\nthis subject, in the Fifth Homily, on the Dedication of the Temple. \u201cBy\nthe goodness of God, meditating sometimes on the soul, I think I discover\nin it, as it were, two opposite characters. If I view it as it is in\nitself and of itself, I cannot utter a greater truth concerning it, than\nthat it is reduced to nothing. What need is there at present to enumerate\nall its miseries, how it is loaded with sins, enveloped in darkness,\nentangled with allurements, inflamed with inordinate desires, subject to\nthe passions, filled with illusions, always prone to evil, inclined to\nevery vice, and finally full of ignominy and confusion? Now, if even our\nrighteousnesses, when viewed in the light of truth, be found to be \u2018as\nfilthy rags,\u2019(1517) what judgment will be formed of our acknowledged\nunrighteousness? \u2018If the light that is in\u2019 us \u2018be darkness, how great is\nthat darkness!\u2019(1518) What then? Man is undoubtedly become like vanity;\nman is reduced to nothing; man is nothing. Yet how is he entirely nothing,\nwhom God magnifies? How is he nothing, on whom the heart of God is fixed?\nBrethren, let us revive again. Although we are nothing in our own hearts,\nperhaps there may be something for us latent in the heart of God. O Father\nof mercies, O Father of the miserable, how dost thou fix thine heart on\nus! For thine heart is where thy treasure is. But how are we thy treasure,\nif we are nothing? All nations are before thee as though they existed not;\nthey must be considered as nothing. That is, before thee; not within thee;\nthus it is in the judgment of thy truth; but not thus in the affection of\nthy clemency. Thou callest things which are not, as though they were; and\ntherefore they are not, because thou callest things which are not; yet\nthey are, because thou callest them. For though they are not, with\nreference to themselves, yet with thee they are; according to this\nexpression of Paul: \u2018Not of works, but of him that calleth.\u2019 \u201d(1519) After\nthis, Bernard says, that there is a wonderful connection between these two\nconsiderations. Things which are connected with each other, certainly do\nnot reciprocally destroy each other; which he also more plainly declares\nin the following conclusion: \u201cNow, if we diligently examine what we are in\nboth considerations,\u2014how in one view we are nothing, and in the other how\nwe are magnified,\u2014I conceive that our boasting appears to be restrained;\nbut perhaps it is more increased, and indeed established, that we may\nglory not in ourselves, but in the Lord. If we reflect, if he has decreed\nto save us, we shall shortly be delivered; this is sufficient to recover\nus. But ascending to a loftier and more extensive prospect, let us seek\nthe city of God, let us seek his temple, let us seek his palace, let us\nseek his spouse. I have not forgotten, but with fear and reverence I say,\nWe are; but in the heart of God. We are; but by his condescending favour,\nnot by our own merit.\u201d\n\nXXVI. Now, the fear of the Lord, which is universally ascribed to all the\nsaints, and which is called sometimes \u201cthe beginning of wisdom,\u201d(1520)\nsometimes \u201cwisdom\u201d(1521) itself, although it be but one, proceeds from a\ntwofold apprehension of him. For God requires the reverence of a Father\nand of a Master. Therefore he who truly desires to worship him, will study\nto pay him the obedience of a son and the submission of a servant. The\nLord, by the prophet, distinguishes the obedience which is paid to him as\na father, by the appellation of honour; and the service which he receives\nas a master, by that of fear. \u201cA son (says he) honoureth his father, and a\nservant his master. If, then, I be a father, where is mine honour? And if\nI be a master, where is my fear?\u201d(1522) But notwithstanding his\ndistinction between them, you see how he confounds them together. Let the\nfear of the Lord therefore with us be a reverence mingled with this honour\nand fear. Nor is it surprising, that the same mind cherishes both these\naffections; for he who considers what a Father God is to us, has ample\nreason, even though there were no hell, to dread his displeasure more than\nany death. But, such is the propensity of our nature to the licentiousness\nof transgression, that in order to restrain it by every possible method,\nwe should at the same time indulge this reflection, that all iniquity is\nan abomination to the Lord, under whose power we live, and whose vengeance\nthey will not escape, who provoke his wrath against them by the wickedness\nof their lives.\n\nXXVII. Now, the assertion of John, that \u201cthere is no fear in love, but\nperfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment,\u201d(1523) is not at\nall repugnant to what we have advanced. For he speaks of the terror of\nunbelief, between which and the fear of believers there is a wide\ndifference. For the impious fear not God from a dread of incurring his\ndispleasure, if they could do it with impunity; but because they know him\nto be armed with vindictive power, they tremble with horror at hearing of\nhis wrath. And thus also they fear his wrath, because they apprehend it to\nbe impending over them, because they every moment expect it to fall on\ntheir heads. But the faithful, as we have observed, fear his displeasure\nmore than punishment, and are not disturbed with the fear of punishment,\nas though it were impending over them, but are rendered more cautious that\nthey may not incur it. Thus the apostle, when addressing believers, says,\n\u201cLet no man deceive you with vain words; for, because of these things\ncometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience [or\nunbelief.]\u201d(1524) He threatens not its descending on them; but admonishes\nthem to consider the wrath of the Lord prepared for the impious, on\naccount of the crimes which he had enumerated, that they may avoid\ntempting it. It seldom happens, however, that the reprobate are aroused\nmerely by simple threatenings; but, on the contrary, being already\nobdurate and insensible, when God thunders from heaven, if it be only in\nwords, they rather harden themselves in rebellion; but when they feel the\nstroke of his hand, they are compelled to fear him, whether they will or\nnot. This is commonly called a servile fear, in opposition to a filial\nfear, which is ingenuous and voluntary. Some persons curiously introduce\nan intermediate species of fear; because that servile and constrained\naffection sometimes subdues men\u2019s minds, so that they voluntarily approach\nto the fear of God.\n\nXXVIII. Now, in the Divine benevolence, which is affirmed to be the object\nof faith, we apprehend the possession of salvation and everlasting life to\nbe obtained. For, if no good can be wanting when God is propitious, we\nhave a sufficient certainty of salvation, when he himself assures us of\nhis love. \u201cO God, cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved,\u201d(1525)\nsays the Psalmist. Hence the Scriptures represent this as the sum of our\nsalvation, that he has \u201cabolished\u201d all \u201cenmity,\u201d(1526) and received us\ninto his favour. In which they imply, that since God is reconciled to us,\nthere remains no danger, but that all things will prosper with us.\nWherefore faith, having apprehended the love of God, has promises for the\npresent life and the life to come, and a solid assurance of all blessings;\nbut it is such an assurance as may be derived from the Divine word. For\nfaith certainly promises itself neither longevity, nor honour, nor wealth,\nin the present state; since the Lord has not been pleased to appoint any\nof these things for us; but is contented with this assurance, that\nwhatever we may want of the conveniences or necessaries of this life, yet\nGod will never leave us. But its principal security consists in an\nexpectation of the future life, which is placed beyond all doubt by the\nword of God. For whatever miseries and calamities may on earth await those\nwho are the objects of the love of God, they cannot prevent the Divine\nbenevolence from being a source of complete felicity. Therefore, when we\nmeant to express the perfection of blessedness, we have mentioned the\ngrace of God, as the fountain from which every species of blessings flows\ndown to us. And we may generally observe in the Scriptures, that when they\ntreat not only of eternal salvation, but of any blessing we enjoy, our\nattention is recalled to the love of God. For which reason David says,\nthat \u201cThe loving\u2010kindness of God,\u201d when experienced in a pious heart, \u201cis\nbetter\u201d and more desirable \u201cthan life\u201d itself.(1527) Finally, if we have\nan abundance of all things to the extent of our desires, but are uncertain\nof the love or hatred of God, our prosperity will be cursed, and therefore\nmiserable. But if the paternal countenance of God shine on us, even our\nmiseries will be blessed, because they will be converted into aids of our\nsalvation.(1528) Thus Paul, after an enumeration of all possible\nadversities, glories that they can never separate us from the love of God;\nand in his prayers, he always begins with the grace of God, from which all\nprosperity proceeds. David likewise opposes the Divine favour alone\nagainst all the terrors which disturb us: \u201cThough I walk through the\nvalley of the shadow of death, (says he,) I will fear no evil, for thou\nart with me.\u201d(1529) And we always feel our minds wavering, unless,\ncontented with the grace of God, they seek their peace in it, and are\ndeeply impressed with the sentiment of the Psalmist: \u201cBlessed is the\nnation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his\nown inheritance.\u201d(1530)\n\nXXIX. We make the foundation of faith to be the gratuitous promise; for on\nthat faith properly rests. For, although faith admits the veracity of God\nin all things, whether he command or prohibit, whether he promise or\nthreaten; though it obediently receives his injunctions, carefully\nobserves his prohibitions, and attends to his threatenings,\u2014yet with the\npromise it properly begins, on that it stands, and in that it ends. For it\nseeks in God for life, which is found, not in precepts nor in\ndenunciations of punishments, but in the promise of mercy, and in that\nonly which is gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which sends us back\nto our own works, promises life to us only if we find it in ourselves.\nTherefore, if we wish our faith not to tremble and waver, we must support\nit with the promise of salvation, which is voluntarily and liberally\noffered us by the Lord, rather in consideration of our misery, than in\nrespect of our worthiness. Wherefore the apostle denominates the gospel\n\u201cthe word of faith;\u201d(1531) a character which he denies both to the\nprecepts and to the promises of the law; since there is nothing that can\nestablish faith, but that liberal embassy by which God reconciles the\nworld to himself. Hence also the same apostle frequently connects faith\nwith the gospel; as when he states, that \u201cthe ministry of the gospel was\ncommitted to him for obedience to the faith;\u201d that it is \u201cthe power of God\nunto salvation to every one that believeth;\u201d that therein is the\n\u201crighteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.\u201d(1532) Nor is this to\nbe wondered at; for the gospel being \u201cthe ministry of\nreconciliation,\u201d(1533) there is no other sufficient testimony of the\nDivine benevolence towards us, the knowledge of which is necessary to\nfaith. When we assert, therefore, that faith rests on the gratuitous\npromise, we deny not that believers embrace and revere every part of the\nDivine word, but we point out the promise of mercy as the peculiar object\nof faith. Thus believers ought to acknowledge God as a judge and avenger\nof crimes; yet they fix their eyes peculiarly on his clemency; described\nfor their contemplation as \u201cgracious and full of compassion; slow to\nanger, and of great mercy; good to all, and diffusing his tender mercies\nover all his works.\u201d(1534)\n\nXXX. Nor do I regard the clamours of Pighius, or any such snarlers, who\ncensure this restriction, as though it divided faith, and comprehended\nonly one branch of it. I grant that, as I have already said, the general\nobject of faith (as they express themselves) is the veracity of God,\nwhether he threaten, or give us a hope of his grace. Wherefore the apostle\nattributes this to faith, that Noah feared the destruction of the world\nwhile it was yet unseen.(1535) If the fear of impending punishment was the\nwork of faith, threatenings ought not to be excluded from the definition\nof it. This indeed is true; but these cavillers unjustly charge us with\ndenying that faith respects every part of the word of God. For we only\nintend to establish these two points; first, that it never stands firmly\ntill it comes to the gratuitous promise; secondly, that we are reconciled\nto God only as it unites us to Christ. Both these points are worthy of\nobservation. We are inquiring for a faith which may distinguish the sons\nof God from the reprobate, and believers from unbelievers. If any man\nbelieves the justice of the Divine commands and the truth of the Divine\nthreatenings, must he therefore be called a believer? By no means.\nTherefore faith can have no stability, unless it be placed on the Divine\nmercy. Now, to what purpose do we argue concerning faith? Is it not that\nwe may understand the way of salvation? But how is faith saving, but by\ningrafting us into the body of Christ? There will be no absurdity, then,\nif, in the definition of it, we insist on its principal effect, and as a\ndifference, add to the genus that character which separates believers from\nunbelievers. In a word, these malevolent men have nothing to carp at in\nthis doctrine, without involving in the same reprehension with us, the\napostle Paul, who particularly styles the gospel \u201cthe word of\nfaith.\u201d(1536)\n\nXXXI. Hence, again, we infer, what has been before stated, that the word\nis as necessary to faith, as the living root of the tree is to the fruit;\nbecause, according to David, none can trust in God but those who know his\nname.(1537) But this knowledge proceeds not from every man\u2019s own\nimagination, but from the testimony which God himself gives of his own\ngoodness. This the same Psalmist confirms in another place: \u201cThy salvation\naccording to thy word.\u201d(1538) Again: \u201cSave me: I hoped in thy word.\u201d(1539)\nWhere we must observe the relation of faith to the word, and that\nsalvation is the consequence of it. Yet we exclude not the Divine power,\nby a view of which, unless faith be supported, it will never ascribe to\nGod the honour that is due to him. Paul seems to relate a trifling or\nuninteresting circumstance concerning Abraham, when he says, that he was\npersuaded that God, who had promised him the blessed seed, \u201cwas able also\nto perform.\u201d(1540) In another place, respecting himself he says, \u201cI know\nwhom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which\nI have committed unto him against that day.\u201d(1541) But if any one\nconsiders, how many doubts respecting the power of God frequently intrude\nthemselves, he will fully acknowledge, that they who magnify it as it\ndeserves, have made no small progress in faith. We shall all confess, that\nGod is able to do whatever he pleases; but whilst the smallest temptation\nstrikes us with consternation and terror, it is evident that we derogate\nfrom the Divine power, to which we prefer the menaces of Satan in\nopposition to the promises of God. This is the reason why Isaiah, when he\nwould impress the hearts of the people with an assurance of salvation,\ndiscourses in so magnificent a manner concerning the infinite power of\nGod. He frequently appears, after having begun to treat of the hope of\npardon and reconciliation, to digress to another subject, and to wander\nthrough prolix and unnecessary circumlocutions, celebrating the wonders of\nthe Divine government in the machine of heaven and earth, and the whole\norder of nature: yet there is nothing but what is applicable to the\npresent subject; for, unless the omnipotence of God be presented to our\neyes, our ears will not attend to his word, or not esteem it according to\nits worth. Moreover, the Scripture there speaks of his effectual power;\nfor piety, as we have elsewhere seen, always makes a useful and practical\napplication of the power of God; and particularly proposes to itself those\nof his works in which he has discovered himself as a father. Hence the\nfrequent mention of redemption in the Scriptures, from which the\nIsraelites might learn, that God, who had once been the author of\nsalvation, would be its everlasting preserver. David also teaches us by\nhis own example, that the private benefits which God has conferred on an\nindividual, conduce to the confirmation of his faith for the future: even\nwhen he seems to have deserted us, we ought to extend our views further,\nso as to derive encouragement from his ancient benefits, as it is said in\nanother psalm: \u201cI remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works,\u201d\n&c.(1542) Again: \u201cI will remember the works of the Lord: surely I will\nremember thy wonders of old.\u201d(1543) But since, without the word, all our\nconceptions of the power and works of God are unprofitable and transient,\nwe have sufficient reason for asserting, that there can be no faith,\nwithout the illumination of Divine grace. But here a question might be\nraised\u2014What must be thought of Sarah and Rebecca, both of whom, apparently\nimpelled by the zeal of faith, transgressed the limits of the word? Sarah,\nwhen she ardently desired the promised son, gave her maid\u2010servant to her\nhusband. That she sinned in many respects, is not to be denied; but I now\nrefer to her error in being carried away by her zeal, and not restraining\nherself within the bounds of the Divine word. Yet it is certain, that this\ndesire proceeded from faith. Rebecca, having been divinely assured of the\nelection of her son Jacob, procures him the benediction by a sinful\nartifice; she deceives her husband, the witness and minister of the grace\nof God; she constrains her son to utter falsehoods; she corrupts the truth\nof God by various frauds and impostures; finally, by exposing his promise\nto ridicule, she does all in her power to destroy it. And yet this\ntransaction, however criminal and reprehensible, was not unaccompanied\nwith faith; because she had to overcome many obstacles, that she might\naspire earnestly to that which, without any expectation of worldly\nadvantage, was pregnant with great troubles and dangers. So we must not\npronounce the holy patriarch Isaac to be entirely destitute of faith,\nbecause, after having been divinely apprized of the translation of the\nhonour to his younger son, he nevertheless ceases not to be partial to\nEsau, his first\u2010born. These examples certainly teach that errors are\nfrequently mixed with faith, yet that faith, when real, always retains the\npre\u00ebminence. For, as the particular error of Rebecca did not annul the\neffect of the benediction, so neither did it destroy the faith which\ngenerally predominated in her mind, and was the principle and cause of\nthat action. Nevertheless, Rebecca, in this instance, has discovered how\nliable the human mind is to error, as soon as it allows itself the\nsmallest license. But though our deficiency or imbecility obscures faith,\nyet it does not extinguish it: in the mean time it reminds us how\nsolicitously we ought to attend to the declarations of God; and confirms\nwhat we have said, that faith decays unless it be supported by the word;\nas the minds of Sarah, Isaac, and Rebecca, would have been lost in their\nobliquities, if they had not, by the secret restraint of God, been kept in\nobedience to the word.\n\nXXXII. Again: it is not without reason that we include all the promises in\nChrist;(1544) as the apostle in the knowledge of him includes the whole\ngospel; and in another place teaches, that \u201call the promises of God in him\nare yea, and in him amen.\u201d(1545) The reason of this is plain. For, if God\npromises any thing, he gives a proof of his benevolence; so that there is\nno promise of his which is not a testimony of his love. Nor does it affect\nthe argument, that the impious, when they are loaded with great and\ncontinual benefits from the Divine goodness, render themselves obnoxious\nto a heavier judgment. For since they neither think nor acknowledge that\nthey receive those things from the hand of the Lord,\u2014or if ever they\nacknowledge it, yet they never reflect within themselves on his\ngoodness,\u2014they cannot thereby be instructed concerning his mercy, any more\nthan the brutes, who, according to the circumstances of their condition,\nreceive the same effusion of his liberality, but never perceive it. Nor is\nit any more repugnant to our argument, that by generally rejecting the\npromises designed for them, they draw down on themselves severer\nvengeance. For although the efficacy of the promises is manifested only\nwhen they have obtained credit with us, yet their force and propriety are\nnever extinguished by our unbelief or ingratitude. Therefore, when the\nLord by his promises invites a man not only to receive, but also to\nmeditate on the effects of his goodness, he at the same time gives him a\ndeclaration of his love. Whence we must return to this principle, that\nevery promise is an attestation of the Divine love to us. But it is beyond\nall controversy, that no man is loved by God but in Christ;(1546) he is\nthe \u201cbeloved Son,\u201d in whom the love of the Father perpetually rests, and\nthen from him diffuses itself to us; as Paul says, that we are \u201caccepted\nin the beloved.\u201d(1547) It must therefore be communicated to us by his\nmediation.(1548) Wherefore the apostle, in another place, calls him \u201cour\npeace,\u201d(1549) and elsewhere represents him as the bond by which God is\nunited to us in his paternal love. It follows, that whenever any promise\nis presented to us, our eyes must be directed to him; and that Paul is\ncorrect in stating, that all the promises of God are confirmed and\naccomplished in him.(1550) This is opposed by some examples. For it is not\ncredible that Naaman the Syrian, when he inquired of the prophet\nrespecting the right method of worshipping God,(1551) was instructed\nconcerning the Mediator; yet his piety is commended. Cornelius,(1552) a\nGentile and Roman, could scarcely be acquainted with what was not\nuniversally or clearly known among the Jews; yet his benefactions and\nprayers were acceptable to God; and the sacrifices of Naaman received the\napprobation of the prophet, which neither of these persons could have\nobtained without faith. Similar was the case of the eunuch to whom Philip\nwas conducted;(1553) who, unless he had been possessed of some faith,\nwould never have incurred the labour and expense of a long and difficult\njourney, for the sake of worshipping at Jerusalem. Yet we see how, on\nbeing interrogated by Philip, he betrayed his ignorance of the Mediator. I\nconfess, indeed, that their faith was in some measure implicit, not only\nwith respect to the person of Christ, but with respect to the power and\noffice assigned him by the Father. At the same time it is certain that\nthey had imbibed principles which afforded them some notion of Christ,\nhowever slight; nor should this be thought strange; for the eunuch would\nnot have hastened from a remote country to Jerusalem to adore an unknown\nGod; nor did Cornelius spend so much time, after having once embraced the\nJewish religion, without acquainting himself with the rudiments of sound\ndoctrine. With regard to Naaman, it would have been extremely absurd for\nElisha, who directed him concerning the minutest particulars, to have been\nsilent on the most important subject. Although their knowledge of Christ,\ntherefore, was obscure, yet to suppose that they had none is unreasonable;\nbecause they practised the sacrifices of the law, which must have been\ndistinguished by their end, that is, Christ, from the illegitimate\nsacrifices of the heathen.\n\nXXXIII. This simple and external demonstration of the Divine word ought,\nindeed, to be fully sufficient for the production of faith, if it were not\nobstructed by our blindness and perverseness. But such is our propensity\nto error, that our mind can never adhere to Divine truth; such is our\ndulness, that we can never discern the light of it. Therefore nothing is\neffected by the word, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Whence\nit appears, that faith is far superior to human intelligence. Nor is it\nenough for the mind to be illuminated by the Spirit of God, unless the\nheart also be strengthened and supported by his power. On this point, the\nschoolmen are altogether erroneous, who, in the discussion of faith,\nregard it as a simple assent of the understanding, entirely neglecting the\nconfidence and assurance of the heart. Faith, therefore, is a singular\ngift of God in two respects; both as the mind is enlightened to understand\nthe truth of God, and as the heart is established in it. For the Holy\nSpirit not only originates faith, but increases it by degrees, till he\nconducts us by it all the way to the heavenly kingdom. \u201cThat good thing,\u201d\nsays Paul, \u201cwhich was committed unto thee, keep, by the Holy Ghost which\ndwelleth in us.\u201d(1554) If it be urged, that Paul declares the Spirit to be\ngiven to us \u201cby the hearing of faith,\u201d(1555) this objection is easily\nanswered. If there were only one gift of the Spirit, it would be absurd to\nrepresent the Spirit as the effect of faith, of which he is the author and\ncause; but when the apostle is treating of the gifts with which God adorns\nhis Church, to lead it, by advancements in faith, forwards to perfection,\nwe need not wonder that he ascribes those gifts to faith, which prepares\nus for their reception. It is accounted by the world exceedingly\nparadoxical, when it is affirmed, that no one can believe in Christ, but\nhe to whom it is given. But this is partly for want of considering the\ndepth and sublimity of heavenly wisdom, and the extreme dulness of man in\napprehending the mysteries of God, and partly from not regarding that firm\nand steadfast constancy of heart, which is the principal branch of faith.\n\nXXXIV. But if, as Paul tells us, no one is acquainted with the will of a\nman but \u201cthe spirit of a man which is in him,\u201d(1556) how could man be\ncertain of the will of God? And if we are uncertain respecting the truth\nof God in those things which are the subjects of our present\ncontemplation, how should we have a greater certainty of it, when the Lord\npromises such things as no eye sees and no heart conceives? Human sagacity\nis here so completely lost, that the first step to improvement, in the\nDivine school, is to forsake it. For, like an interposing veil,(1557) it\nprevents us from discovering the mysteries of God, which are revealed only\nto babes.(1558) \u201cFor flesh and blood hath not revealed,\u201d(1559) and \u201cthe\nnatural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are\nfoolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are\nspiritually discerned.\u201d(1560) The aids of the Spirit therefore are\nnecessary, or rather it is his influence alone that is efficacious here.\n\u201cWho hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his\ncounsellor?\u201d(1561) but \u201cthe Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep\nthings of God;\u201d(1562) and through him, \u201cwe have the mind of Christ.\u201d(1563)\n\u201cNo man can come to me (says he) except the Father, which hath sent me,\ndraw him. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the\nFather, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he\nwhich is of God.\u201d Therefore, as we can never come to Christ, unless we are\ndrawn by the Spirit of God, so when we are drawn, we are raised both in\nmind and in heart above the reach of our own understanding. For\nilluminated by him, the soul receives, as it were, new eyes for the\ncontemplation of heavenly mysteries, by the splendour of which it was\nbefore dazzled. And thus the human intellect, irradiated by the light of\nthe Holy Spirit, then begins to relish those things which pertain to the\nkingdom of God, for which before it had not the smallest taste. Wherefore\nChrist\u2019s two disciples receive no benefit from his excellent discourse to\nthem on the mysteries of his kingdom,(1564) till he opens their\nunderstanding that they may understand the Scriptures. Thus, though the\napostles were taught by his Divine mouth, yet the Spirit of Truth must be\nsent to them, to instil into their minds the doctrine which they had heard\nwith their ears.(1565) The word of God is like the sun shining on all to\nwhom it is preached; but without any benefit to the blind. But in this\nrespect we are all blind by nature; therefore it cannot penetrate into our\nminds, unless the internal teacher, the Spirit, make way for it by his\nillumination.\n\nXXXV. In a former part of this work, relating to the corruption of nature,\nwe have shown more at large the inability of men to believe; therefore I\nshall not fatigue the reader by a repetition of the same things. Let it\nsuffice that faith itself, which we possess not by nature, but which is\ngiven us by the Spirit, is called by Paul \u201cthe spirit of faith.\u201d(1566)\nTherefore he prays \u201cthat God would fulfil,\u201d in the Thessalonians, \u201call the\ngood pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power.\u201d(1567) By\ncalling faith \u201cthe work\u201d of God, and \u201cthe good pleasure of his goodness,\u201d\nhe denies it to be the proper effect of human exertion; and not content\nwith that, he adds that it is a specimen of the Divine power. When he says\nto the Corinthians, that faith stands \u201cnot in the wisdom of men, but in\nthe power of God,\u201d(1568) he speaks indeed of external miracles; but\nbecause the reprobate have no eyes to behold them, he comprehends also the\ninward seal which he elsewhere mentions. And that he may more\nillustriously display his liberality in so eminent a gift, God deigns not\nto bestow it promiscuously on all, but by a singular privilege imparts it\nto whom he will. We have already cited testimonies to prove this point.\nAugustine, who is a faithful expositor of them, says, \u201cIt was in order to\nteach us that the act of believing is owing to the Divine gift, not to\nhuman merit, that our Saviour declared, \u2018No man can come to me, except the\nFather which hath sent me draw him;(1569) and except it were given unto\nhim of my Father.\u2019(1570) It is wonderful, that two persons hear; one\ndespises, the other ascends. Let him who despises, impute it to himself;\nlet him who ascends, not arrogate it to himself.\u201d In another place he\nsays, \u201cWherefore is it given to one, not to another? I am not ashamed to\nreply, This is a depth of the cross. From I know not what depth of the\nDivine judgments, which we cannot scrutinize, proceeds all our ability.\nThat I can, I see; whence I can, I see not; unless that I see thus far,\nthat it is of God. But why one, and not another? It is too much for me; it\nis an abyss, a depth of the cross. I can exclaim with admiration, but not\ndemonstrate it in disputation.\u201d The sum of the whole is this\u2014that Christ,\nwhen he illuminates us with faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same\ntime ingrafts us into his body, that we may become partakers of all his\nbenefits.\n\nXXXVI. It next remains, that what the mind has imbibed, be transfused into\nthe heart. For the word of God is not received by faith, if it floats on\nthe surface of the brain; but when it has taken deep root in the heart, so\nas to become an impregnable fortress to sustain and repel all the assaults\nof temptation. But if it be true that the right apprehension of the mind\nproceeds from the illumination of the Spirit, his energy is far more\nconspicuous in such a confirmation of the heart; the diffidence of the\nheart being greater than the blindness of the mind; and the furnishing of\nthe heart with assurance being more difficult than the communication of\nknowledge to the understanding. Therefore the Spirit acts as a seal, to\nseal on our hearts those very promises, the certainty of which he has\npreviously impressed on our minds, and serves as an earnest to confirm and\nestablish them. \u201cAfter that ye believed,\u201d says the apostle, \u201cye were\nsealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our\ninheritance.\u201d(1571) Do you see how he shows that the hearts of believers\nare impressed by the Spirit, as by a seal? How, for this reason, he calls\nhim \u201cthe Spirit of promise,\u201d because he ratifies the gospel to us? So, to\nthe Corinthians, he says, \u201cHe which hath anointed us, is God; who hath\nalso sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.\u201d(1572)\nAnd in another place, where he speaks of the confidence and boldness of\nhope, he makes \u201cthe earnest of the Spirit\u201d(1573) the foundation of it.\n\nXXXVII. I have not forgotten what I have already observed, and the\nremembrance of which experience incessantly renews, that faith is agitated\nwith various doubts; so that the minds of the pious are seldom at ease, or\nat best enjoy not a state of perpetual tranquillity. But whatever assaults\nthey may sustain, they either emerge from the very gulf of temptation, or\nremain firm in their station. This assurance alone nourishes and supports\nfaith, while we are satisfied of what is declared by the Psalmist, \u201cGod is\nour refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will we\nnot fear, though the earth be removed, and the mountains be carried into\nthe midst of the sea.\u201d(1574) This most delightful repose is celebrated\nalso in another psalm: \u201cI laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord\nsustained me.\u201d(1575) Not that David enjoyed a happy cheerfulness of soul\nperpetually flowing on in one even tenor; but having tasted the grace of\nGod according to the proportion of his faith, he glories in intrepidly\ndespising whatever could disquiet the peace of his mind. Therefore the\nScripture, intending to exhort us to faith, commands us to \u201cbe quiet.\u201d In\nIsaiah, \u201cIn quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.\u201d(1576) In\nthe Psalms, \u201cRest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him.\u201d(1577) With\nwhich corresponds the observation of the apostle to the Hebrews, \u201cYe have\nneed of patience.\u201d(1578)\n\nXXXVIII. Hence we may judge, how pernicious that dogma of the schoolmen\nis, that it is impossible to decide concerning the favour of God towards\nus, any otherwise than from moral conjecture, as every individual may deem\nhimself not unworthy of it. If it must be determined by our works how the\nLord is affected towards us, I admit we cannot attain this object even by\na very slight conjecture; but as faith ought to correspond to the simple\nand gratuitous promise, there remains no room for doubting. For with what\nconfidence, pray, shall we be armed, if we reason that God is propitious\nto us on this condition, provided the purity of our life deserve it? But\nhaving determined on a separate discussion of these points, I shall pursue\nthem no further at present; especially since it is manifest that nothing\nis more opposite to faith than either conjecture or any thing else\napproaching to doubt. And they very mischievously pervert to this purpose\nthe observation of the Preacher, which is frequently in their mouths: \u201cNo\nman knoweth whether he is worthy of hatred or of love.\u201d(1579) For not to\nobserve that this passage is falsely rendered in the Vulgate translation,\nyet the meaning of Solomon, in such expressions, must be clear even to\nchildren; it is, that if any one wishes, from the present state of things,\nto judge who are the objects of Divine love or hatred, he labours in vain,\nand distresses himself to no good purpose; since \u201cthere is one event to\nthe righteous and to the wicked; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that\nsacrificeth not.\u201d(1580) Whence it follows that God neither testifies his\nlove to those whom he prospers with success, nor invariably discovers his\nhatred against those whom he plunges into affliction. And this observation\nis designed to reprove the vanity of the human understanding; since it is\nso extremely stupid respecting things most necessary to be known. He had\njust before said, \u201cThat which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts;\nas the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so\nthat a man hath no pre\u00ebminence above a beast.\u201d(1581) If any one would\ninfer from this, that the opinion which we hold of the immortality of the\nsoul rests upon mere conjecture, would he not be deservedly deemed insane?\nAre those persons, then, in a state of sanity, who conclude that there is\nno certainty of the favour of God, because it cannot be attained from the\ncarnal contemplation of present things?\n\nXXXIX. But they plead that it is rash presumption in men to arrogate to\nthemselves an undoubted knowledge of the Divine will. This, indeed, I\nwould concede to them, if we pretended to subject the incomprehensible\ncounsel of God to the slenderness of our understanding. But when we simply\nassert with Paul, that \u201cwe have received, not the spirit of the world, but\nthe Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely\ngiven to us of God,\u201d(1582) what opposition can they make to us, without at\nthe same time insulting the Spirit of God? But if it be a horrible\nsacrilege to accuse the revelation which proceeds from him either of\nfalsehood, or of uncertainty, or of ambiguity, wherein do we err in\naffirming its certainty? But they exclaim, that we betray great temerity,\nin thus presuming to boast of the Spirit of Christ. Who could believe the\nstupidity of men desirous of being esteemed teachers of the world, to be\nso extreme as to stumble in this shameful manner at the first elements of\nreligion? It would certainly be incredible to me, if it were not proved by\nthe writings which they have published. Paul pronounces them alone to be\nthe sons of God, who are led by his Spirit:(1583) these men will have\nthose who are the sons of God to be led by their own spirit, but to be\ndestitute of the Spirit of God. He teaches, that we call God our Father at\nthe suggestion of the Spirit, who \u201cbeareth witness with our spirit, that\nwe are the children of God:\u201d(1584) these men, though they forbid not all\ninvocation of God, yet deprive us of the Spirit, by whose influence alone\nhe can be rightly invoked. He denies them to be the servants of Christ,\nwho are not led by the Spirit of Christ:(1585) these men invent a sort of\nChristianity, to which the Spirit of Christ is not necessary. He admits no\nhope of a happy resurrection, unless we experience the Spirit dwelling in\nus:(1586) these men fabricate a hope unattended by such experience. But\nperhaps they will answer, that they deny not the necessity of our being\nendued with the Spirit; but that it is the part of modesty and humility\nnot to acknowledge our possession of him. What, then, is the meaning of\nthe apostle in this exhortation to the Corinthians\u2014\u201cExamine yourselves,\nwhether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves; know ye not yourselves,\nhow that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?\u201d(1587) But says\nJohn, \u201cWe know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given\nus.\u201d(1588) And do we not call in question the promises of Christ, when we\nwish to be accounted the servants of God without the possession of his\nSpirit, whom he has announced that he will pour out upon all his\npeople?(1589) Do we not injure the Holy Spirit, if we separate faith from\nhim, which is his peculiar work? These being the first rudiments of piety,\nit is a proof of most miserable blindness, that Christians are censured as\narrogant for presuming to glory in the presence of the Holy Spirit,\nwithout which glorying Christianity itself cannot exist. But they\nexemplify the truth of Christ\u2019s assertion, \u201cThe world knoweth not the\nSpirit of truth; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be\nin you.\u201d(1590)\n\nXL. Not satisfied with one attempt to destroy the stability of faith, they\nassail it again from another quarter; by arguing, that although we may\nform a judgment concerning the favour of God from the present state of our\nrighteousness, yet the knowledge of final perseverance remains in\nsuspense. Truly we are left in possession of an admirable confidence of\nsalvation, if we can only conclude from mere conjecture that we are in the\nfavour of God at the present instant, but are utterly ignorant what may be\nour fate to\u2010morrow. The apostle expresses a very different opinion: \u201cI am\npersuaded (says he) that neither life, nor death, nor angels, nor\nprincipalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor\nheight, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us\nfrom the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.\u201d(1591) They\nattempt to evade the force of this, by a frivolous pretence that the\napostle had it from a particular revelation; but they are too closely\npressed to avail themselves of this evasion. For he is there treating of\nthe benefits resulting from faith to all believers in common, not of any\nwhich were peculiar to his own experience. But the same apostle, they say,\nin another place, excites fear in us, by the mention of our imbecility and\ninconstancy. \u201cLet him (says he) that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest\nhe fall.\u201d(1592) It is true; but not a fear by which we may be thrown into\nconsternation, but from which we may learn to \u201chumble ourselves,\u201d as Peter\nexpresses it, \u201cunder the mighty hand of God.\u201d Besides, how preposterous is\nit to limit to a moment of time the assurance of faith, whose nature it is\nto go beyond the bounds of the present life, and reach forward to a future\nimmortality! Since believers, then, ascribe it to the grace of God that\nthey are illuminated by his Spirit, and enjoy through faith a\ncontemplation of the heavenly life, such a glorying is so remote from\narrogance, that, if any one be ashamed to confess it, he rather betrays\nextreme ingratitude by a criminal suppression of the Divine goodness, than\ngives an evidence of modesty or humility.\n\nXLI. Because we thought that the nature of faith could not be better or\nmore clearly expressed than by the substance of the promise, which is the\nproper foundation on which it rests, and the removal of which would\noccasion its fall or annihilation,\u2014it is from the promise, therefore, that\nwe have taken our definition, which, nevertheless, is not at all at\nvariance with that definition, or rather description, of the apostle,\nwhich he accommodates to his argument; where he says, that \u201cfaith is the\nsubstance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.\u201d(1593) For\nby \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, which is the word he uses, and which is rendered substance,\nhe intends a prop, as it were, on which the pious mind rests and reclines;\nas though he had said, that faith is a certain and secure possession of\nthose things which are promised to us by God. Unless any one would rather\nunderstand \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of confidence, to which I shall not object, though I\nadopt that idea which is the more generally received. Again: to signify\nthat even till the last day, when the books shall be opened, these objects\nare too sublime to be perceived by our senses, seen with our eyes, or\nhandled with our hands; and that, in the mean time, they are enjoyed by us\nonly as we exceed the capacity of our own understanding, extend our views\nbeyond all terrestrial things, and even rise above ourselves; he has\nadded, that this security of possession relates to things which are the\nobjects of hope, and therefore invisible. For \u201chope that is seen (as Paul\nobserves) is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope\nfor?\u201d(1594) But when he calls it an evidence, or proof, or (as Augustine\nhas frequently rendered it) a conviction of things not seen, (for the\nGreek word is \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2,) it is just as though he had called it the evidence\nof things not apparent, the vision of things not seen, the perspicuity of\nthings obscure, the presence of things absent, the demonstration of things\nconcealed. For the mysteries of God, of which description are the things\nthat pertain to our salvation, cannot be discerned in themselves, and in\ntheir own nature; we only discover them in his word, of whose veracity we\nought to be so firmly persuaded, as to consider all that he speaks as\nthough it were already performed and accomplished. But how can the mind\nelevate itself to receive such a taste of the Divine goodness, without\nbeing all inflamed with mutual love to God? For the plenitude of\nhappiness, which God has reserved for them who fear him, cannot be truly\nknown, but it must at the same time excite a vehement affection. And those\nwhom it has once affected, it draws and elevates towards itself. Therefore\nwe need not wonder if a perverse and malicious heart never feel this\naffection, which conducts us to heaven itself, and introduces us to the\nmost secret treasures of God and the most sacred recesses of his kingdom,\nwhich must not be profaned by the entrance of an impure heart. For what\nthe schoolmen(1595) advance concerning the priority of charity to faith\nand hope, is a mere reverie of a distempered imagination, since it is\nfaith alone which first produces charity in us. How much more accurately\nBernard speaks! \u201cI believe,\u201d says he, \u201cthat the testimony of conscience,\nwhich Paul calls the rejoicing of the pious, consists in three things. For\nit is necessary to believe, first of all, that you cannot have remission\nof sins but through the mercy of God; secondly, that you cannot have any\ngood work, unless he bestow this also; lastly, that you cannot by any\nworks merit eternal life, unless that also be freely given.\u201d(1596) Just\nafter he adds, \u201cthat these things are not sufficient, but are a beginning\nof faith; because in believing that sins can only be forgiven by God, we\nought at the same time to consider that they are forgiven us, till we are\nalso persuaded, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, that salvation is\nlaid up for us; because God forgives sins; he also bestows merits; he\nlikewise confers rewards; it is not possible to remain in this beginning.\u201d\nBut these and other things must be treated in the proper places; it may\nsuffice, at present, to ascertain wherein faith itself consists.\n\nXLII. Now, wherever this living faith shall be found, it must necessarily\nbe attended with the hope of eternal salvation as its inseparable\nconcomitant, or rather must originate and produce it; since the want of\nthis hope would prove us to be utterly destitute of faith, however\neloquently and beautifully we might discourse concerning it. For if faith\nbe, as has been stated, a certain persuasion of the truth of God, that it\ncan neither lie, nor deceive us, nor be frustrated,\u2014they who have felt\nthis assurance, likewise expect a period to arrive when God will\naccomplish his promises, which, according to their persuasion, cannot but\nbe true; so that, in short, hope is no other than an expectation of those\nthings which faith has believed to be truly promised by God. Thus faith\nbelieves the veracity of God, hope expects the manifestation of it in due\ntime; faith believes him to be our Father, hope expects him always to act\ntowards us in this character; faith believes that eternal life is given to\nus, hope expects it one day to be revealed; faith is the foundation on\nwhich hope rests, hope nourishes and sustains faith. For as no man can\nhave any expectations from God, but he who has first believed his\npromises, so also the imbecility of our faith must be sustained and\ncherished by patient hope and expectation, lest it grow weary and faint.\nFor which reason, Paul rightly places our salvation in hope.(1597) For\nhope, while it is silently expecting the Lord, restrains faith, that it\nmay not be too precipitate; it confirms faith, that it may not waver in\nthe Divine promises, or begin to doubt of the truth of them; it refreshes\nit, that it may not grow weary; it extends it to the farthest goal, that\nit may not fail in the midst of the course, or even at the entrance of it.\nFinally, hope, by continually renewing and restoring faith, causes it\nfrequently to persevere with more vigour than hope itself. But in how many\ncases the assistance of hope is necessary to the establishment of faith,\nwill better appear, if we consider how many species of temptations assail\nand harass those who have embraced the word of God. First, the Lord, by\ndeferring the execution of his promises, frequently keeps our minds in\nsuspense longer than we wish; here it is the office of hope to obey the\ninjunction of the prophet\u2014\u201cthough it tarry, wait for it.\u201d(1598) Sometimes\nhe not only suffers us to languish, but openly manifests his indignation:\nin this case it is much more necessary to have the assistance of hope,\nthat, according to the language of another prophet, we may \u201cwait upon the\nLord that hideth his face from Jacob.\u201d(1599) Scoffers also arise, as Peter\nsays, and inquire, \u201cWhere is the promise of his coming? for since the\nfathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning\nof the creation.\u201d(1600) And the flesh and the world whisper the same\nthings into our ears. Here faith must be supported by the patience of\nhope, and kept fixed on the contemplation of eternity, that it may\nconsider \u201ca thousand years as one day.\u201d(1601)\n\nXLIII. On account of this union and affinity, the Scripture sometimes uses\nthe words faith and hope without any distinction. For when Peter says that\nwe \u201care kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be\nrevealed,\u201d(1602) he attributes to faith, what was more applicable to hope;\nand not without reason, since we have already shown, that hope is no other\nthan the nourishment and strength of faith. Sometimes they are joined\ntogether, as in a passage of the same Epistle\u2014\u201cthat your faith and hope\nmight be in God.\u201d(1603) But Paul, in the Epistle to the Philippians,(1604)\ndeduces expectation from hope; because in patient hope we suspend our\ndesires till the arrival of God\u2019s appointed time. All which may be better\nunderstood from the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,(1605)\nwhich I have already cited. In another place, Paul, though with some\nimpropriety of expression, conveys the very same idea in these words: \u201cWe,\nthrough the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith;\u201d(1606)\nbecause, having embraced the testimony of the gospel concerning his\ngratuitous love, we wait till God openly manifests what is now concealed\nunder hope. Now, it is easy to see the absurdity of Peter Lombard, in\nlaying a twofold foundation of hope; the grace of God, and the merit of\nworks. Hope can have no other object than faith; and the only object of\nfaith, we have very clearly stated to be the mercy of God; to which both\nits eyes, if I may be allowed the expression, ought to be directed. But it\nmay be proper to hear what kind of a reason he advances. If, says he, you\nventure to hope for any thing without merits, it must not be called hope,\nbut presumption. Who is there that will not justly detest such teachers,\nwho pronounce a confidence in the veracity of God to be temerity and\npresumption? For whereas it is the will of the Lord that we should expect\nevery thing from his goodness, they assert that it is presumption to\ndepend and rely upon it. Such a master is worthy of such disciples as he\nhas found in the schools of wranglers! But, as for us, since we see that\nsinners are enjoined by the oracles of God to entertain a hope of\nsalvation, let us joyfully presume so far on his veracity as to reject all\nconfidence in our own works, to depend solely on his mercy, and venture to\ncherish a hope of happiness. He who said, \u201cAccording to your faith be it\nunto you,\u201d(1607) will not deceive us.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. On Repentance.\n\n\nThough we have already shown, in some respect, how faith possesses Christ,\nand how by means of faith we enjoy his benefits, yet the subject would\nstill be involved in obscurity, unless we were to add a description of the\neffects which we experience. The substance of the gospel is, not without\nreason, said to be comprised in \u201crepentance and remission of sins.\u201d\nTherefore, if these two points be omitted, every controversy concerning\nfaith will be jejune and incomplete, and consequently of little use. Now,\nsince both are conferred on us by Christ, and we obtain both by\nfaith,\u2014that is, newness of life and gratuitous reconciliation,\u2014the regular\nmethod of instruction requires me, in this place, to enter on the\ndiscussion of both. But our immediate transition will be from faith to\nrepentance; because, when this point is well understood, it will better\nappear how man is justified by faith alone, and mere pardon, and yet that\nreal sanctity of life (so to speak) is not separated from the gratuitous\nimputation of righteousness. Now, it ought not to be doubted that\nrepentance not only immediately follows faith, but is produced by it. For\nsince pardon, or remission, is offered by the preaching of the gospel, in\norder that the sinner, liberated from the tyranny of Satan, from the yoke\nof sin, and the miserable servitude of his vices, may remove into the\nkingdom of God,\u2014no one can embrace the grace of the gospel, but he must\ndepart from the errors of his former life, enter into the right way, and\ndevote all his attention to the exercise of repentance. Those who imagine\nthat repentance rather precedes faith, than is produced by it, as fruit by\na tree, have never been acquainted with its power, and are induced to\nadopt that sentiment by a very insufficient argument.\n\nII. They argue that Jesus Christ and John the Baptist, in their preaching,\nfirst exhort the people to repentance; and afterwards add, that \u201cthe\nkingdom of heaven is at hand;\u201d(1608) that thus the apostles were commanded\nto preach, and that this (according to the account of Luke)(1609) was the\nmethod followed by Paul. But they superstitiously attend to the connection\nof the syllables, and disregard the sense and coherence of the words. For\nwhen Christ and John preach in this manner, \u201cRepent, for the kingdom of\nheaven is at hand,\u201d(1610) do they not derive an argument for repentance\nfrom grace itself, and the promise of salvation? The meaning of their\nlanguage, therefore, is just as though they had said, Since the kingdom of\nheaven is at hand, therefore repent. For Matthew, having related that John\npreached in this manner, informs us, that in him was accomplished the\nprediction of Isaiah concerning \u201cthe voice of one crying in the\nwilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.\u201d But,\nin the prophet, that voice is commanded to begin with consolation and glad\ntidings.(1611) Yet, when we speak of faith as the origin of repentance, we\ndream not of any space of time which it employs in producing it; but we\nintend to signify, that a man cannot truly devote himself to repentance,\nunless he knows himself to be of God. Now, no man is truly persuaded that\nhe is of God, except he has previously received his grace. But these\nthings will be more clearly discussed as we proceed. This circumstance,\nperhaps, has deceived them\u2014that many are overcome or led to obedience by\nterrors of conscience, before they have imbibed a knowledge of grace, or\nhave even tasted it. And this is the initial fear, which some number among\nthe graces, because they perceive it to be nearly connected with true and\nrighteous obedience. But we are not inquiring, at present, in how many\nways Christ draws us to himself, or prepares us for the practice of piety:\nonly I assert, that no rectitude can be found but where that Spirit\nreigns, whom he has received in order to communicate him to his members.\nIn the next place, according to this passage in the Psalms, \u201cThere is\nforgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,\u201d(1612) no man will ever\nreverence God, but he who confides in his being propitious to him: no man\nwill cheerfully devote himself to the observance of his law, but he who is\npersuaded that his services are pleasing to him: and this indulgence in\npardoning us, and bearing with our faults, is an evidence of his paternal\nfavour. The same also appears from this exhortation of Hosea, \u201cCome, and\nlet us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he\nhath smitten, and he will bind us up;\u201d(1613) because the hope of pardon is\nadded as a stimulus, to prevent them from being stupefied in their sins.\nBut there is not the least appearance of reason in the notion of those\nwho, in order to begin with repentance, prescribe to their young converts\ncertain days, during which they must exercise themselves in repentance;\nafter the expiration of which, they admit them to the communion of\nevangelical grace. I speak of many of the Anabaptists, especially of those\nwho wonderfully delight in being accounted spiritual; and their\ncompanions, the Jesuits, and other such worthless men. Such are the\neffects produced by that spirit of fanaticism, that it terminates\nrepentance within the limits of a few short days, which a Christian ought\nto extend throughout his whole life.\n\nIII. But concerning repentance, some learned men, in times very remote\nfrom the present, desiring to express themselves with simplicity and\nsincerity according to the rule of the Scripture, have said that it\nconsists of two parts\u2014mortification and vivification. Mortification they\nexplain to be the sorrow of the mind, and the terror experienced from a\nknowledge of sin and a sense of the Divine judgments. For when any one has\nbeen brought to a true knowledge of sin, he then begins truly to hate and\nabhor it; then he is heartily displeased with himself, confesses himself\nto be miserable and lost, and wishes that he were another man. Moreover,\nwhen he is affected with some sense of the Divine judgment, (for the one\nimmediately follows the other,) then, indeed, he is stricken with\nconsternation, he trembles with humility and dejection, he feels a\ndespondency of mind, he falls into despair. This is the first part of\nrepentance, which they have generally styled contrition. Vivification they\nexplain to be the consolation which is produced by faith; when a man,\nafter having been humbled with a consciousness of sin, and stricken with\nthe fear of God, afterwards contemplates the goodness of God, and the\nmercy, grace, and salvation bestowed through Christ, rises from his\ndepression, feels himself re\u2010invigorated, recovers his courage, and as it\nwere returns from death to life. These terms, provided they be rightly\nunderstood, are sufficiently adapted to express the nature of repentance;\nbut when they explain vivification of that joy which the mind experiences\nafter its perturbations and fears are allayed, I cannot coincide with\nthem; since it should rather signify an ardent desire and endeavour to\nlive a holy and pious life, as though it were said, that a man dies to\nhimself, that he may begin to live to God.\n\nIV. Others, perceiving this word to have various acceptations in\nScripture, have laid down two kinds of repentance; and, to distinguish\nthem by some character, have called one Legal; in which the sinner,\nwounded by the envenomed dart of sin, and harassed by the fear of Divine\nwrath, is involved in deep distress, without the power of extricating\nhimself: the other they style Evangelical; in which the sinner is\ngrievously afflicted in himself, but rises above his distress, and\nembraces Christ as the medicine for his wound, the consolation of his\nterrors, and his refuge from all misery. Of legal repentance, they\nconsider Cain, Saul, and Judas, as examples;(1614) the scriptural account\nof whose repentance gives us to understand, that from a knowledge of the\ngreatness of their sins they dreaded the Divine wrath, but that\nconsidering God only as an avenger and a judge, they perished under that\napprehension. Their repentance, therefore, was only, as it were, the\nantechamber of hell, which having already entered in this life, they began\nto suffer punishment from the manifestation of the wrath of the Divine\nMajesty. Evangelical repentance we discover in all who have been\ndistressed by a sense of sin in themselves, but have been raised from\ntheir depression, and reinvigorated by a confidence in the Divine mercy,\nand converted to the Lord. Hezekiah was terrified when he received the\nmessage of death;(1615) but he wept and prayed, and, contemplating the\ngoodness of God, recovered his former confidence. The Ninevites were\nconfounded by the terrible denunciation of destruction;(1616) but they\ncovered themselves with sackcloth and ashes, and prayed, in hope that the\nLord might be appeased, and the fury of his wrath averted. David confessed\nthat he had committed a great sin in numbering the people; but added, \u201cO\nLord, take away the iniquity of thy servant.\u201d(1617) He acknowledged his\ncrime of adultery at the rebuke of Nathan, and prostrated himself before\nthe Lord; but at the same time cherished an expectation of pardon.(1618)\nSuch was the repentance of those who felt compunction of heart at the\npreaching of Peter, but, confiding in the goodness of God, exclaimed, \u201cMen\nand brethren, what shall we do?\u201d(1619) Such also was that of Peter\nhimself, who wept bitterly, but never lost his hope.\n\nV. Though all these observations are true, yet the term repentance, as far\nas I can ascertain from the Scriptures, must have a different acceptation.\nFor to include faith in repentance, is repugnant to what Paul says in the\nActs\u2014that he testified \u201cboth to the Jews, and also to the Greeks,\nrepentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;\u201d(1620)\nwhere he mentions faith and repentance, as two things totally distinct.\nWhat then? Can true repentance exist without faith? Not at all. But though\nthey cannot be separated, yet they ought to be distinguished. As faith\nexists not without hope, and yet there is a difference between them, so\nrepentance and faith, although they are perpetually and indissolubly\nunited, require to be connected rather than confounded. I am well aware,\nthat under the term _repentance_ is comprehended a complete conversion to\nGod, of which faith is one of the principal branches; but in what sense,\nwill best appear from an explication of its nature and properties. The\nHebrew word for repentance denotes conversion or return. The Greek word\nsignifies change of mind and intention. Repentance itself corresponds very\nwell with both etymologies, for it comprehends these two things\u2014that,\nforsaking ourselves, we should turn to God, and laying aside our old mind,\nshould assume a new one. Wherefore I conceive it may be justly defined to\nbe \u201c_a true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere and\nserious fear of God, and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and\nof the old man, and in the vivification of the Spirit_.\u201d In this sense we\nmust understand all the addresses, in which either the prophets in ancient\ndays, or the apostles in a succeeding age, exhorted their contemporaries\nto repentance. For the point to which they endeavoured to bring them was\nthis\u2014that being confounded by their sins, and penetrated with a fear of\nthe Divine judgment, they might prostrate themselves in humility before\nhim against whom they had offended, and with true penitence return into\nhis right way. Therefore these expressions, \u201c_to repent_\u201d(1621) and \u201c_to\nreturn to the Lord_,\u201d(1622) are promiscuously used by them in the same\nsignification. Hence also the sacred history expresses repentance by\n_seeking after_ and _following God_, when men who have disregarded him,\nand indulged their criminal propensities, begin to obey his word, and are\nready to follow whithersoever he calls them. And John and Paul have spoken\nof \u201cbringing forth fruits meet for repentance,\u201d to signify a life which,\nin every action, will discover and testify such a repentance.\n\nVI. But before we proceed any further, it will be useful to amplify and\nexplain the definition we have given; in which there are three points to\nbe particularly considered. In the first place, when we call repentance \u201ca\nconversion of the life to God,\u201d we require a transformation, not only in\nthe external actions, but in the soul itself; which, after having put off\nits old nature, should produce the fruits of actions corresponding to its\nrenovation. The prophet, intending to express this idea, commands those\nwhom he calls to repentance, to make themselves a new heart.(1623)\nWherefore Moses, when about to show how the Israelites might repent and be\nrightly converted to the Lord, frequently teaches them that it must be\ndone with all their heart, and with all their soul; and by speaking of the\ncircumcision of the heart, he enters into the inmost affections of the\nmind. This mode of expression we find often repeated by the prophets; but\nthere is no passage from which we may obtain clearer ideas of the true\nnature of repentance, than from the language of God in the fourth chapter\nof Jeremiah: \u201cIf thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto\nme. Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise\nyourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.\u201d(1624)\nObserve how he denounces that they shall labour in vain in the pursuit of\nrighteousness, unless impiety be previously eradicated from the bottom of\ntheir hearts. And in order to make a deeper impression upon them, he\napprizes them that they have to do with God, with whom subterfuges are of\nno avail, because he abhors all duplicity of heart. For this reason,\nIsaiah ridicules the preposterous endeavours of hypocrites, who did indeed\nstrenuously attempt an external repentance by the observance of\nceremonies, but at the same time were not concerned \u201cto loose the bands of\nwickedness,\u201d(1625) with which they oppressed the poor. In that passage he\nalso beautifully shows, in what duties unfeigned repentance properly\nconsists.\n\nVII. In the second place, we represented repentance as proceeding from a\nserious fear of God. For before the mind of a sinner can be inclined to\nrepentance, it must be excited by a knowledge of the Divine judgment. But\nwhen this thought has once been deeply impressed, that God will one day\nascend his tribunal to exact an account of all words and actions, it will\nnot permit the miserable man to take any interval of rest, or to enjoy\neven a momentary respite, but perpetually stimulates him to adopt a new\ncourse of life, that he may be able to appear with security at that\njudgment. Wherefore the Scripture, when it exhorts to repentance,\nfrequently introduces a mention of the judgment; as in Jeremiah; \u201cLest my\nfury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of\nthe evil of your doings:\u201d(1626) in the address of Paul to the Athenians;\n\u201cThe times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men\nevery where to repent; because he hath appointed a day in which he will\njudge the world in righteousness:\u201d(1627) and in many other places.\nSometimes, by the punishments already inflicted, it declares that God is a\njudge; in order that sinners may consider with themselves that worse\ncalamities await them, unless they speedily repent. We have an example of\nthis in the twenty\u2010ninth chapter of Deuteronomy. But since conversion\ncommences with a dread and hatred of sin, therefore the apostle makes\ngodly sorrow the cause of repentance.(1628) He calls it godly sorrow when\nwe not only dread punishment, but hate and abhor sin itself, from a\nknowledge that it is displeasing to God. Nor ought this to be thought\nstrange; for, unless we felt sharp compunction, our carnal sluggishness\ncould never be corrected, and even these distresses of mind would not be\nsufficient to arouse it from its stupidity and indolence, if God, by the\ninfliction of his chastisements, did not make a deeper impression. Beside\nthis, there is a rebellious obstinacy, which requires violent blows, as it\nwere, to overcome it. The severity, therefore, which God uses in his\nthreatenings, is extorted from him by the depravity of our minds; since it\nwould be in vain for him to address kind and alluring invitations to those\nwho are asleep. I forbear to recite the testimonies with which the\nScripture abounds. The fear of God is called the beginning of repentance\nalso for another reason; because though a man\u2019s life were perfect in every\nvirtue, if it be not devoted to the worship of God, it may indeed be\ncommended by the world, but in heaven it will be only an abomination;\nsince the principal branch of righteousness consists in rendering to God\nthe honour due to him, of which he is impiously defrauded, when it is not\nour end and aim to submit ourselves to his government.\n\nVIII. It remains for us, in the third place, to explain our position, that\nrepentance consists of two parts\u2014the mortification of the flesh and the\nvivification of the spirit. This is clearly expressed by the prophets,\nalthough in a simple and homely manner, according to the capacity of a\ncarnal people, when they say, \u201cDepart from evil, and do good.\u201d(1629)\nAgain: \u201cWash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from\nbefore mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment;\nrelieve the oppressed,\u201d &c.(1630) For when they call men from the paths of\nwickedness, they require the total destruction of the flesh, which is full\nof wickedness and perverseness. It is a thing truly difficult and arduous\nto put off ourselves, and to depart from the native bias of our minds. Nor\nmust the flesh be considered as entirely dead, unless all that we have of\nourselves be destroyed. But since the universal disposition of the flesh\nis settled \u201cenmity against God,\u201d(1631) the first step to an obedience of\nthe law is this renunciation of our own nature. They afterwards designate\nthe renovation by its fruits\u2014righteousness, judgment, and mercy. For a\npunctual performance of these external duties would not be sufficient,\nunless the mind and heart had previously acquired a disposition of\nrighteousness, judgment, and mercy. This takes place when the Spirit of\nGod has tinctured our souls with his holiness, and given them such new\nthoughts and affections, that they may be justly considered as new, [or\naltogether different from what they were before.] And certainly, as we\nhave a natural aversion to God, we shall never aim at that which is right,\nwithout a previous renunciation of ourselves. Therefore we are so\nfrequently commanded to put off the old man, to renounce the world and the\nflesh, to forsake our lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of our mind.\nBesides, the very word mortification reminds us how difficult it is to\nforget our former nature; for it implies that we cannot be formed to the\nfear of God, and learn the rudiments of piety, without being violently\nslain and annihilated by the sword of the Spirit. As though God had\npronounced that, in order to our being numbered among his children, there\nis a necessity for the destruction of our common nature.\n\nIX. Both these branches of repentance are effects of our participation of\nChrist. For if we truly partake of his death, our old man is crucified by\nits power, and the body of sin expires, so that the corruption of our\nformer nature loses all its vigour.(1632) If we are partakers of his\nresurrection, we are raised by it to a newness of life, which corresponds\nwith the righteousness of God. In one word I apprehend repentance to be\nregeneration, the end of which is the restoration of the Divine image\nwithin us; which was defaced, and almost obliterated, by the transgression\nof Adam. Thus the apostle teaches us, when he says, \u201cBut we all, with open\nface beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the\nsame image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.\u201d(1633)\nAgain: \u201cBe ye renewed in the spirit of your mind; and put on the new man,\nwhich after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.\u201d(1634)\nAgain, in another place: \u201cAnd ye have put on the new man, which is renewed\nin knowledge after the image of him that created him.\u201d(1635) Wherefore, in\nthis regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the\nrighteousness of God, from which we fell in Adam; in which manner the Lord\nis pleased completely to restore all those whom he adopts to the\ninheritance of life. And this restoration is not accomplished in a single\nmoment, or day, or year; but by continual, and sometimes even tardy\nadvances, the Lord destroys the carnal corruptions of his chosen, purifies\nthem from all pollution, and consecrates them as temples to himself;\nrenewing all their senses to real purity, that they may employ their whole\nlife in the exercise of repentance, and know that this warfare will be\nterminated only by death. And so much the greater is the wickedness of\nthat impure and quarrelsome apostate Staphylus, who idly pretends that I\nconfound the state of the present life with the glory of heaven, when I\nexplain the image of God, according to Paul, to be righteousness and true\nholiness. As if, indeed, when any thing is to be defined, we are not to\ninquire after the completeness and perfection of it. It is not denied that\nthere is room for further advances; but I assert, that as far as any man\napproaches to a resemblance of God, so far the image of God is displayed\nin him. That believers may attain to this, God assigns them the race of\nrepentance to run during their whole life.\n\nX. Thus, therefore, the children of God are liberated by regeneration from\nthe servitude of sin; not that they have already obtained the full\npossession of liberty, and experience no more trouble from the flesh, but\nthere remains in them a perpetual cause of contention to exercise them;\nand not only to exercise them, but also to make them better acquainted\nwith their own infirmity. And on this subject all sound writers are\nagreed\u2014that there still remains in a regenerate man a fountain of evil,\ncontinually producing irregular desires, which allure and stimulate him to\nthe commission of sin. They acknowledge, also, that saints are still so\nafflicted with the disease of concupiscence, that they cannot prevent\ntheir being frequently stimulated and incited either to lust, or to\navarice, or to ambition, or to other vices. There is no need of a\nlaborious investigation, to learn what were the sentiments of the fathers\non this subject: it will be sufficient to consult Augustine alone, who\nwith great diligence and fidelity has collected the opinions of them all.\nFrom him, then, the reader may receive all the certainty he can desire\nconcerning the sense of antiquity. Between him and us, this difference may\nbe discovered\u2014that while he concedes that believers, as long as they\ninhabit a mortal body, are so bound by concupiscence that they cannot but\nfeel irregular desires, yet he ventures not to call this disease by the\nname of _sin_, but, content with designating it by the appellation of\ninfirmity, teaches that it only becomes sin in cases where either action\nor consent is added to the conception or apprehension of the mind, that\nis, where the will yields to the first impulse of appetite. But we, on the\ncontrary, deem it to be sin, whenever a man feels any evil desires\ncontrary to the Divine law; and we also assert the depravity itself to be\nsin, which produces these desires in our minds. We maintain, therefore,\nthat sin always exists in the saints, till they are divested of the mortal\nbody; because their flesh is the residence of that depravity of\nconcupiscence, which is repugnant to all rectitude. Nevertheless, he has\nnot always refrained from using the word sin in this sense; as when he\nsays, \u201cPaul gives the appellation of sin to this, from which all sins\nproceed, that is, to carnal concupiscence. This, as it respects the\nsaints, loses its kingdom on earth, and has no existence in heaven.\u201d In\nthese words he acknowledges that believers are guilty of sin, inasmuch as\nthey are the subjects of carnal concupiscence.\n\nXI. But when God is said \u201cto cleanse his church\u201d(1636) from all sin, to\npromise the grace of deliverance in baptism, and to fulfil it in his\nelect,\u2014we refer these phrases rather to the guilt of sin, than to the\nexistence of sin. In the regeneration of his children, God does indeed\ndestroy the kingdom of sin in them, (for the Spirit supplies them with\nstrength, which renders them victorious in the conflict;) but though it\nceases to reign, it continues to dwell in them. Wherefore we say, that\n\u201cthe old man is crucified,\u201d(1637) that the law of sin is abolished in the\nchildren of God, yet so that some relics remain; not to predominate over\nthem, but to humble them with a consciousness of their infirmity. We\ngrant, indeed, that they are not imputed, any more than if they did not\nexist; but we likewise contend that it is owing to the mercy of God that\nthe saints are delivered from this guilt, who would otherwise be justly\naccounted sinners and guilty before him. Nor will it be difficult for us\nto confirm this opinion, since there are clear testimonies of Scripture to\nsupport it. What can we desire more explicit than the declaration of Paul\nto the Romans?(1638) In the first place, that he there speaks in the\ncharacter of a regenerate man, we have already shown; and Augustine has\nevinced the same by the strongest arguments. I say nothing of his using\nthe words evil and sin. However those who wish to oppose us may cavil at\nthose words, yet who can deny that a resistance to the Divine law is evil?\nwho can deny that an opposition to righteousness is sin? finally, who will\nnot admit that there is guilt wherever there is spiritual misery? But all\nthese things are affirmed by Paul respecting this disease. Besides, we\nhave a certain demonstration from the law, by which this whole question\nmay be briefly decided. For we are commanded to love God with all our\nheart, with all our mind, and with all our strength. Since all the powers\nof our soul ought to be thus occupied by the love of God, it is evident\nthat the precept is not fulfilled by those who receive into their hearts\nthe least desire, or admit into their minds any thought, which may draw\nthem aside from the love of God into vanity. What then? Are not these\nproperties of the soul,\u2014to be affected with sudden emotions, to apprehend\nin the sensory, and to form conceptions in the mind? When these,\ntherefore, open a way for the admission of vain and corrupt thoughts, do\nthey not show that they are so far destitute of the love of God? Whoever,\ntherefore, refuses to acknowledge that all the inordinate desires of the\nflesh are sins, and that that malady of concupiscence, which they call an\nincentive to sin, is the source of sin, must necessarily deny the\ntransgression of the law to be sin.\n\nXII. If it be thought absurd, that all the natural appetites of man should\nbe thus universally condemned, since they were implanted by God, the\nauthor of nature,\u2014we reply, that we by no means condemn those desires,\nwhich God implanted so deeply in the nature of man at his first creation\nthat they cannot be eradicated from it without destroying humanity itself,\nbut only those insolent and lawless appetites which resist the commands of\nGod. But now, since, through the depravity of nature, all its powers are\nso vitiated and corrupted, that disorder and intemperance are visible in\nall our actions; because the appetites are inseparable from such excesses,\ntherefore we maintain that they are corrupt. Or, if it be wished to have\nthe substance of our opinion in fewer words, we say, that all the desires\nof men are evil; and we consider them to be sinful, not as they are\nnatural, but because they are inordinate; and we affirm they are\ninordinate, because nothing pure or immaculate can proceed from a\ncorrupted and polluted nature. Nor does Augustine deviate from this\ndoctrine so much as he appears to do. When he is too much afraid of the\nodium with which the Pelagians endeavoured to overwhelm him, he sometimes\nrefrains from using the word _sin_: yet when he says, \u201cthat the law of sin\nremains in the saints, and that only the guilt is abolished,\u201d he\nsufficiently indicates that he is not averse to our opinion.\n\nXIII. We will adduce some other passages, from which his sentiments will\nmore fully appear. In his second book against Julian: \u201cThis law of sin is\nboth abolished in the spiritual regeneration, and continues in the mortal\nflesh; abolished, since the guilt is removed in the sacrament, by which\nbelievers are regenerated; but continues, because it produces those\ndesires against which also believers contend.\u201d Again: \u201cTherefore the law\nof sin, which was in the members even of so great an apostle, is abolished\nin baptism, but not finally destroyed.\u201d Again: \u201cThe law of sin, the\nremaining guilt of which is removed in baptism, Ambrose has called\n_iniquity_; because it is iniquitous for the flesh to lust against the\nspirit.\u201d Again: \u201cSin is dead in that guilt in which it held us; and,\nalthough dead, it will rebel till it is cured by the perfection of\nburial.\u201d In the fifth book, he is still more explicit: \u201cAs blindness of\nheart is both a sin, which consists in a man\u2019s not believing in God; and a\npunishment for sin, by which a proud heart is deservedly punished; and\nalso a cause of sin, when any is committed through the error of a blind\nheart; so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit\nlusteth, is both a sin, because it is a disobedience against the\ngovernment of the mind; and a punishment for sin, because it is inflicted\nfor the demerits of the disobedient; and also a cause of sin, consenting\nby defection, or produced from contagion.\u201d Here he styles it _sin_,\nwithout any ambiguity; because, having overthrown error and confirmed the\ntruth, he is not so much afraid of calumnies; as also in the forty\u2010first\nhomily on John, where he undoubtedly speaks the real sentiments of his\nmind: \u201cIf in the flesh you serve the law of sin, do what the apostle\nhimself says\u2014\u2019Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey\nit in the lusts thereof.\u2019(1639) He says not, let it not exist; but, let it\nnot reign. As long as you live, sin must necessarily exist in your\nmembers; let it at least be divested of its kingdom, so that its commands\nmay not be fulfilled.\u201d Those who contend that concupiscence is not sin,\ncommonly object this passage of James\u2014\u201cWhen lust hath conceived, it\nbringeth forth sin.\u201d(1640) But this objection is easily repelled; for,\nunless we understand him there to speak of evil works exclusively, or of\nactual sins, even an evil volition cannot be accounted sin. But from his\ncalling flagitious and criminal actions the offspring of lust, and\nattributing to them the name of sin, it does not necessarily follow that\nconcupiscence is not an evil thing, and deserving of condemnation in the\nsight of God.\n\nXIV. Some Anabaptists, in the present age, imagine I know not what frantic\nintemperance, instead of spiritual regeneration\u2014that the children of God,\nbeing restored to a state of innocence, are no longer obliged to be\nsolicitous to restrain the licentiousness of the flesh, but that they\nought to follow the leadings of the Spirit, under whose direction it is\nimpossible ever to err. It would be incredible that the mind of man should\nfall into such madness, did they not publicly and haughtily disseminate\nthis opinion. It is indeed truly prodigious; but it is just and\nreasonable, that those who have persuaded themselves to pervert the truth\nof God into a falsehood, should suffer such punishment for their\nsacrilegious presumption. Must all distinction, then, of honour and\nturpitude, justice and injustice, good and evil, virtue and vice, be\nannihilated? This difference, they say, proceeds from the malediction of\nthe old Adam, from which we are delivered by Christ. Then there will be no\ndifference now between chastity and fornication, sincerity and knavery,\ntruth and falsehood, equity and rapine. Dismiss (they say) all vain fear;\nthe Spirit will command you nothing that is evil, provided you securely\nand intrepidly resign yourself to his direction. Who is not astonished at\nthese monstrous notions? Yet this is a popular philosophy among those,\nwho, blinded by the violence of their appetites, have discarded common\nsense. But what kind of a Christ, and what kind of a Spirit, have they\nfabricated for us? For we acknowledge one Christ and his Spirit alone;\nwhom the prophets have celebrated, whom the gospel proclaims as revealed,\nbut of whom it gives us no such account as this. That Spirit is not the\npatron of murder, fornication, drunkenness, pride, contention, avarice, or\nfraud; but the author of love, chastity, sobriety, modesty, peace,\nmoderation, and truth. He is not a Spirit of fanaticism, rushing\nprecipitately, without any consideration, through right and wrong; but is\nfull of wisdom and understanding, rightly to discern between justice and\ninjustice. He never instigates to dissolute and unrestrained\nlicentiousness; but, discriminating between what is lawful and what is\nunlawful, inculcates temperance and moderation. But why should we spend\nany more labour in refuting this monstrous frenzy? To Christians the\nSpirit of the Lord is not a turbulent phantom, which they have either\nspawned themselves in a dream, or received from the invention of others;\nbut they religiously seek the knowledge of him in the Scriptures, where\nthese two things are delivered concerning him\u2014first, that he is given to\nus in order to our sanctification, to purify us from all our pollutions,\nand lead us to obey the Divine righteousness; which obedience cannot exist\nwithout the subjugation of the appetites, to which these men would allow\nan unlimited license: in the next place, that we are so purified by his\nsanctification, that we are nevertheless still encompassed with numerous\nvices and great infirmity, as long as we are burdened with the body.\nWherefore, being at a great distance from perfection, it behoves us to\nmake continual advances; and being entangled in vices, we have need to\nstrive against them every day. Hence, also, it follows that we ought to\nshake off all slothful security, and exert the most vigilant attention,\nlest, without caution, we should be surprised and overcome by the snares\nof our flesh; unless we are well assured that we have made a greater\nprogress than the apostle; who, nevertheless, was buffeted by the\n\u201cmessenger of Satan,\u201d(1641) that his strength might be \u201cmade perfect in\nweakness;\u201d(1642) and who faithfully represented the conflict between the\nflesh and the Spirit, which he experienced in his own person.\n\nXV. When the apostle, in a description of repentance, enumerates seven\nthings, which are either causes producing it, or effects proceeding from\nit, or members and parts of it, he does it for a very good reason. These\nthings are, carefulness, excuse, indignation, fear, vehement desire, zeal,\nrevenge.(1643) Nor ought it to be thought strange that I venture not to\ndetermine whether they should be considered as causes or effects; for\narguments may be adduced in support of both. They may also be styled\naffections connected with repentance; but as we may discover the meaning\nof Paul without discussing these questions, we shall be content with a\nsimple exposition of them. He says, then, that godly sorrow produces\n_solicitude_. For a person who is affected with a serious sense of\ndispleasure because he has sinned against his God, is at the same time\nstimulated to diligence and attention, that he may completely extricate\nhimself from the snares of the devil, and be more cautious of his\ninsidious attacks, that he may not in future disobey the government of the\nSpirit, or be overcome with a careless security. The next thing is _self\u2010\nexcuse_, which in this place signifies not a defence by which a sinner\ntries to escape the judgment of God, either by denying his transgressions\nor extenuating his guilt, but a kind of excuse, consisting rather in\ndeprecation of punishment than in confidence of his cause. Just as\nchildren, who are not absolutely lost to all sense of duty, while they\nacknowledge and confess their faults, at the same time deprecate\npunishment, and, in order to succeed, testify by every possible method\nthat they have not cast off that reverence which is due to their parents;\nin a word, they excuse themselves in such a manner, not to prove\nthemselves righteous and innocent, but only to obtain pardon. This is\nfollowed by _indignation_, in which the sinner laments within himself,\nexpostulates with himself, and is angry with himself, while he recollects\nhis perverseness and ingratitude to God. The word _fear_ denotes that\ntrepidation with which our minds are penetrated, whenever we reflect upon\nour demerits, and on the terrible severity of the Divine wrath against\nsinners. For we cannot but be agitated with an amazing inquietude, which\nteaches us humility, and renders us more cautious for the future. Now, if\nthe solicitude before mentioned be the offspring of fear, we see the\nconnection and coherence between them. He appears to me to have used the\nword _desire_ to denote diligence in duty and alacrity of obedience, to\nwhich the knowledge of our faults ought to be a most powerful stimulus.\nSimilar to this is the meaning of _zeal_, which he immediately subjoins;\nfor it signifies the ardour with which we are inflamed, when we are roused\nwith such thoughts as these: \u201cWhat have I done? Whither had I precipitated\nmyself, if I had not been succoured by the mercy of God?\u201d The last thing\nis _revenge_, or punishment; for the greater our severity is towards\nourselves, and the stricter inquisition we make concerning our sins, so\nmuch the stronger hope ought we to entertain that God will be propitious\nand merciful. And, indeed, it is impossible but that a soul, impressed\nwith a dread of the Divine judgment, must inflict some punishment on\nitself. Truly pious persons experience what punishments are contained in\nshame, confusion, lamentation, displeasure with themselves, and the other\naffections which arise from a serious acknowledgment of their\ntransgressions. But let us remember that some limit must be observed, that\nwe may not be overwhelmed in sorrow; for to nothing are terrified\nconsciences more liable than to fall into despair. And with this artifice,\nalso, whomsoever Satan perceives to be dejected by a fear of God, he\nplunges them further and further into the deep gulf of sorrow, that they\nmay never arise again. That fear, indeed, cannot be excessive, which\nterminates in humility, and departs not from the hope of pardon.\nNevertheless, the sinner should always be on his guard, according to the\ndirection of the apostle,(1644)lest while he excites his heart to be\ndispleased with himself, he be _wearied_ with excessive dread, and _faint\nin his mind_; for this would drive us away from God, who calls us to\nhimself by repentance. On this subject, Bernard also gives a very useful\nadmonition: \u201cSorrow for sin is necessary, if it be not perpetual. I advise\nyou sometimes to quit the anxious and painful recollection of your own\nways, and to arise to an agreeable and serene remembrance of the Divine\nblessings. Let us mingle honey with wormwood, that its salutary bitterness\nmay restore our health, when it shall be drunk tempered with a mixture of\nsweetness; and if you reflect on your own meanness, reflect also on the\ngoodness of the Lord.\u201d\n\nXVI. Now, it may also be understood what are the fruits of repentance.\nThey are, the duties of piety towards God, and of charity towards men,\nwith sanctity and purity in our whole life. In a word, the more diligently\nany one examines his life by the rule of the Divine law, so much the more\ncertain evidences he discovers of his repentance. The Spirit, therefore,\nin frequently exhorting us to repentance, calls our attention, sometimes\nto all the precepts of the law, sometimes to the duties of the second\ntable; though in other places, after having condemned impurity in the very\nfountain of the heart, he proceeds to those external testimonies which\nevidence a sincere repentance; a view of which I will soon exhibit to the\nreader, in a description of the Christian life. I shall not collect\ntestimonies from the prophets, in which they partly ridicule the follies\nof those who attempt to appease God by ceremonies, and demonstrate them to\nbe mere mockeries; and partly inculcate, that external integrity of life\nis not the principal branch of repentance, because God looks at the heart.\nHe that is but ordinarily acquainted with the Scripture, will discover of\nhimself, without being informed by any one, that in our concerns with God,\nwe advance not a single step unless we begin with the internal affection\nof the heart. And this passage of Joel will afford us no small assistance\nin the interpretation of others: \u201cRend your heart, and not your\ngarments.\u201d(1645) Both these ideas are briefly expressed in these words of\nJames\u2014\u201cCleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double\nminded;\u201d(1646) where there is indeed an addition made to the first clause;\nbut the fountain, or original, is next discovered, showing the necessity\nof cleansing the secret pollution, that an altar may be erected to God\neven in the heart. There are likewise some external exercises which we\nuse, in private, as remedies either to humble ourselves, or to subdue our\ncarnality; and in public, to testify our repentance. They proceed from the\nrevenge mentioned by Paul;(1647) for it is natural to an afflicted mind to\ncontinue in a squalid condition, groaning and weeping, to avoid every kind\nof splendour and pomp, and to forsake all pleasures. He who experiences\nthe great evil of the rebellion of the flesh, seeks every remedy to\nrestrain it. He who properly considers what a grievous thing it is to have\noffended the justice of God, can enjoy no repose till he has glorified God\nby his humility. Such exercises are frequently mentioned by the old\nwriters, when they speak of the fruits of repentance. And though they by\nno means make repentance wholly to consist in them, yet the reader will\npardon me if I deliver my opinion, that they appear to me to insist upon\nthem more than they ought. And I hope every one, on a sober examination,\nwill agree with me, that they have gone beyond all due bounds in two\nrespects. For when they so strongly urged and so extravagantly recommended\nthat corporeal discipline, the consequence was indeed that the common\npeople adopted it with great ardour; but they also obscured that which\nought to be esteemed of infinitely greater importance. Secondly, in the\ninfliction of castigations, they used rather more rigour than was\nconsistent with ecclesiastical gentleness. But we shall have to treat of\nthis in another place.\n\nXVII. But as some persons, when they find weeping, fasting, and ashes\nmentioned, not only in many other passages of Scripture, but particularly\nin Joel,(1648) consider fasting and weeping as the principal part of\nrepentance, their mistake requires to be rectified. What is there said of\nthe conversion of the whole heart to the Lord, and of rending not the\ngarments, but the heart, properly belongs to repentance; but weeping and\nfasting are not added as perpetual or necessary effects of it, but as\ncircumstances belonging to a particular case. Having prophesied that a\nmost grievous destruction was impending over the Jews, he persuades them\nto prevent the Divine wrath, not only by repentance, but also by\nexhibiting external demonstrations of sorrow. For as it was customary, in\nancient times, for an accused person to present himself in a suppliant\nposture, with a long beard, dishevelled hair, and mourning apparel, in\norder to conciliate the compassion of the judge, so it became those who\nstood as criminals before the tribunal of God, to deprecate his severity\nin a condition calculated to excite commiseration. Though sackcloth and\nashes were perhaps more suitable to those times, yet it is evident that\nthe practice of weeping and fasting would be very seasonable among us,\nwhenever the Lord appears to threaten us with any affliction or calamity.\nFor when he causes danger to appear, he, as it were, denounces that he is\nprepared and armed for the exercise of vengeance. The prophet, therefore,\nwas right in exhorting his countrymen to weeping and fasting; that is, to\nthe sadness of persons under accusation, into whose offences he had just\nbefore said that an examination was instituted. Neither would the pastors\nof the church act improperly in the present age, if, when they perceived\ncalamity impending over the heads of their people, they called them to\nimmediate weeping and fasting; provided they always insisted with the\ngreatest fervour and diligence on the principal point, which is, that they\nmust rend their hearts, and not their garments. It is certain, that\nfasting is not always the concomitant of repentance, but is appointed for\ntimes of peculiar calamity; wherefore Christ connects it with mourning,\nwhen he frees the apostles from any obligation to it, till they should be\naffected with grief at the loss of his presence.(1649) I speak of solemn\nfasting. For the life of the pious ought at all times to be regulated by\nfrugality and sobriety, that through its whole progress it may appear to\nbe a kind of perpetual fast. But as the whole of this subject must be\ndiscussed again, when we come to treat of Ecclesiastical Discipline, I\ntouch the more slightly upon it at present.\n\nXVIII. I will again remark, however, that when the word _repentance_ is\ntransferred to this external profession, it is improperly changed from the\ngenuine signification which I have stated. For this external profession is\nnot so much a conversion to God, as a confession of sin, with a\ndeprecation of punishment and guilt. Thus to \u201crepent in sackcloth and\nashes,\u201d(1650) is only a declaration of our displeasure against ourselves,\nwhen God is angry with us on account of our grievous offences. And this is\na public species of confession, by which condemning ourselves before\nangels and men, we prevent the judgment of God. For Paul rebukes the\nsluggishness of those who indulge their sins, saying, \u201cIf we would judge\nourselves, we should not be judged.\u201d(1651) It is not necessary, in all\ncases, publicly to make men witnesses of our repentance; but a private\nconfession to God is a branch of true penitence which cannot be omitted.\nFor nothing is more unreasonable than that God should pardon sins, in\nwhich we encourage ourselves, and which, lest he should bring them to\nlight, we conceal under the garb of hypocrisy. And it is not only\nnecessary to confess the sins which we commit from day to day; more\ngrievous falls ought to lead us further, and to recall to our remembrance\nthose which appear to have been long buried in oblivion. We learn this\nfrom the example of David;(1652) for, being ashamed of a recent and\nflagitious crime, he examines himself back to the time of his conception,\nand acknowledges that even then he was corrupted and contaminated with\ncarnal impurity; and this not to extenuate his guilt, as many conceal\nthemselves in a multitude, and endeavour to escape with impunity by\nimplicating others with themselves. Very different was the conduct of\nDavid, who ingenuously aggravated his guilt, by confessing that he was\ncorrupted from his earliest infancy, and had never ceased to accumulate\ncrimes upon crimes. In another place, also, he enters on such an\nexamination of his past life, that he implores the Divine mercy to pardon\nthe sins of his youth.(1653) And certainly we shall never give proof that\nwe have shaken off our lethargy, till, groaning under the burden, and\nbewailing our misery, we pray to God for relief. It is further to be\nremarked, that the repentance which we are commanded constantly to\npractise, differs from that which arouses, as it were, from death those\nwho have either fallen into some great enormity, or abandoned themselves\nto a course of sin with unrestrained license, or by any rebellion shaken\noff the Divine yoke. For when the Scripture exhorts to repentance, it\nfrequently signifies a kind of transition and resurrection from death to\nlife; and when it states that the people repented, it means that they\ndeparted from idolatry and other gross enormities; in which sense Paul\ndeclares his grief for sinners, who \u201chave not repented of their\nuncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness.\u201d(1654) This difference\nshould be carefully observed, lest, when we hear that few are called to\nrepentance, we fall into a supine security, as though we had no more to do\nwith the mortification of the flesh, from which the depraved appetites\nthat perpetually disturb us, and the vices that often arise in us, will\nnever permit us to relax. The special repentance, therefore, which is only\nrequired of some whom the devil has seduced from the fear of God, and\nentangled in his fatal snares, supersedes not that ordinary repentance,\nwhich the corruption of nature obliges us to practise during the whole\ncourse of our lives.\n\nXIX. Now, if it be true, as it certainly is, that the whole substance of\nthe gospel is comprised in these two points, repentance and remission of\nsins,\u2014do not we perceive that the Lord freely justifies his children, that\nhe may also restore them to true righteousness by the sanctification of\nhis Spirit? John, the \u201cmessenger sent before the face\u201d of Christ to\n\u201cprepare his way before him,\u201d(1655) preached, \u201cRepent ye, for the kingdom\nof heaven is at hand.\u201d(1656) By calling men to repentance, he taught them\nto acknowledge themselves to be sinners, and every thing belonging to them\nto be condemned before God, that they might earnestly desire and pray for\na mortification of the flesh, and new regeneration in the Spirit. By\nannouncing the kingdom of God, he called them to exercise faith; for by\n\u201cthe kingdom of God,\u201d the approach of which he proclaimed, he intended\nremission of sins, salvation, life, and in general all the benefits that\nwe obtain in Christ. Wherefore, in the other evangelists, it is said, that\n\u201cJohn came, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of\nsins.\u201d(1657) What was intended by this, but that, oppressed and wearied\nwith the burden of sins, men should turn themselves to the Lord, and\nentertain a hope of remission and salvation? Thus, also, Christ commenced\nhis public ministrations. \u201cThe kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and\nbelieve the gospel.\u201d(1658) First, he declares that the treasures of mercy\nare opened in himself; then he requires repentance; and lastly, a reliance\non the Divine promises. Therefore, when he would give a brief summary of\nthe whole gospel, he said, that \u201cit behoved him to suffer, and to rise\nfrom the dead; and that repentance and remission of sins should be\npreached in his name.\u201d(1659) The apostles also, after his resurrection,\npreached that he was exalted by God, \u201cto give repentance to Israel and\nremission of sins.\u201d(1660) Repentance is preached in the name of Christ,\nwhen men are informed, by the doctrine of the gospel, that all their\nthoughts, their affections, and their pursuits, are corrupt and vicious;\nand that therefore it is necessary for them to be born again, if they wish\nto enter the kingdom of God. Remission of sins is preached, when men are\ntaught that Christ is made unto them \u201cwisdom, and righteousness, and\nsanctification, and redemption;\u201d(1661) in whose name they are gratuitously\naccounted righteous and innocent in the sight of God. Both these blessings\nof grace, as we have already shown, are apprehended by faith; yet since\nthe goodness of God in the remission of sins is the peculiar object of\nfaith, it was necessary that it should be carefully distinguished from\nrepentance.\n\nXX. Now, as a hatred of sin, which is the commencement of repentance, is\nour first introduction to the knowledge of Christ, who reveals himself to\nnone but miserable and distressed sinners, who mourn, and labour, and are\nheavy laden; who hunger and thirst, and are pining away with grief and\nmisery;(1662) so it is necessary for us, if we desire to abide in Christ,\nto strive for this repentance, to devote our whole lives to it, and to\npursue it to the last. For he \u201ccame to call sinners,\u201d but it was to call\nthem \u201cto repentance.\u201d(1663) He was \u201csent to bless\u201d the unworthy; but it\nwas \u201cin turning away every one from his iniquities.\u201d(1664) The Scripture\nis full of such expressions. Wherefore, when God offers remission of sins,\nhe generally requires repentance on the part of the sinner; implying that\nhis mercy ought to furnish a motive to excite us to repentance. \u201cKeep ye\njudgment, and do justice; for my salvation is near.\u201d(1665) Again: \u201cThe\nRedeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in\nJacob.\u201d(1666) Again: \u201cSeek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon\nhim while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous\nman his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy\nupon him.\u201d(1667) Again: \u201cRepent, and be converted, that your sins may be\nblotted out.\u201d(1668) Here it must be remarked, however, that this condition\nis not annexed in such a manner, as though our repentance were the\nfundamental and meritorious cause of pardon; but rather, because the Lord\nhas determined to have mercy upon men, in order that they may repent, he\ninforms them what course they must take if they wish to obtain his favour.\nTherefore, as long as we inhabit the prison of our body, we shall have to\nmaintain an incessant conflict with the vices of our corrupt nature, and\neven with our natural soul. Plato sometimes says, that the life of a\nphilosopher is a meditation of death. We may assert with more truth, that\nthe life of a Christian is perpetually employed in the mortification of\nthe flesh, till it is utterly destroyed, and the Spirit of God obtains the\nsole empire within us. Wherefore I think that he has made a very\nconsiderable proficiency, who has learned to be exceedingly displeased\nwith himself: not that he should remain in this distress, and advance no\nfurther, but rather hasten and aspire towards God; that being ingrafted\ninto the death and life of Christ, he may make repentance the object of\nhis constant meditation and pursuit. And this cannot but be the conduct of\nthose who feel a genuine hatred of sin; for no man ever hated sin, without\nhaving been previously captivated with the love of righteousness. This\ndoctrine, as it is the most simple of all, so also it appears to me to be\nmost consistent with the truth of the Scripture.\n\nXXI. That repentance is a peculiar gift of God, must, I think, be so\nevident from the doctrine just stated, as to preclude the necessity of a\nlong discourse to prove it. Therefore the Church praises and admires the\ngoodness of God, that he \u201chath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto\nlife;\u201d(1669) and Paul, when he enjoins Timothy to be patient and gentle\ntowards unbelievers, says, \u201cIf God, peradventure, will give them\nrepentance, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the\ndevil.\u201d(1670) God affirms, indeed, that he wills the conversion of all\nmen, and directs his exhortations promiscuously to all; but the efficacy\nof these exhortations depends on the Spirit of regeneration. For it were\nmore easy to make ourselves men, than by our own power to endue ourselves\nwith a more excellent nature. Therefore, in the whole course of\nregeneration, we are justly styled God\u2019s \u201cworkmanship, created unto good\nworks, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.\u201d(1671)\nWhomsoever God chooses to rescue from destruction, them he vivifies by the\nSpirit of regeneration: not that repentance is properly the cause of\nsalvation, but because, as we have already seen, it is inseparable from\nfaith and the mercy of God; since, according to the testimony of Isaiah,\n\u201cthe Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from\ntransgression in Jacob.\u201d(1672) It remains an unshaken truth, that wherever\nthe fear of God prevails in the heart, the Spirit has operated to the\nsalvation of that individual. Therefore, in Isaiah, where believers are\nbewailing and deploring their being deserted by God, they mention this as\na sign of reprobation, that their hearts are hardened by him.(1673) The\napostle also, intending to exclude apostates from all hope of salvation,\nasserts, as a reason, that \u201cit is impossible to renew them again unto\nrepentance;\u201d(1674) because God, in the renewal of those whom he will not\nsuffer to perish, discovers an evidence of his paternal favour, and\nattracts them to himself with the radiance of his serene and joyful\ncountenance; whilst, on the contrary, he displays his wrath in hardening\nthe reprobate, whose impiety is never to be forgiven.(1675) This kind of\nvengeance the apostle denounces against wilful apostates, who, when they\ndepart from the faith of the gospel, deride God, contumeliously reject his\ngrace, profane and trample on the blood of Christ, and do all in their\npower to crucify him again. For he does not, as is pretended by some\npreposterously severe persons, preclude all voluntary sinners from a hope\nof pardon. His design is to show that apostasy is unworthy of every\nexcuse, and therefore it is not strange that God punishes such a\nsacrilegious contempt of himself with inexorable rigour. \u201cFor it is\nimpossible (he tells us) for those who were once enlightened, and have\ntasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,\nand have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,\nif they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they\ncrucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open\nshame.\u201d(1676) Again: \u201cIf we sin wilfully after that we have received the\nknowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a\ncertain fearful looking\u2010for of judgment.\u201d(1677) These are the passages,\nfrom a misinterpretation of which the Novatians formerly derived a\npretence for their extravagant opinions; and the apparent harshness of\nwhich has offended some good men, and induced them to believe that this\nEpistle is supposititious, though every part of it contains unequivocal\nevidences of the apostolic spirit. But as we are contending only with\nthose who receive it, it is easy to show that these passages afford not\nthe least countenance to their error. In the first place, the apostle must\nnecessarily be in unison with his Master, who affirms that \u201call sin and\nblasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy\nGhost, which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the\nworld to come.\u201d(1678) The apostle, I say, must certainly have been content\nwith this exception, unless we wish to make him an enemy to the grace of\nChrist. Whence it follows, that pardon is denied to no particular sins,\nexcept one, which proceeds from desperate fury, and cannot be attributed\nto infirmity, but clearly proves a man to be possessed by the devil.\n\nXXII. But, for the further elucidation of this subject, it is necessary to\ninquire into the nature of that dreadful crime which will obtain no\nforgiveness. Augustine somewhere defines it to be an obstinate\nperverseness, attended with a despair of pardon, and continued till death;\nbut this is not consistent with the language of Christ, that \u201cit shall not\nbe forgiven in this world.\u201d For either this is a vain assertion, or the\nsin may be committed in this life. But if the definition of Augustine be\nright, it is never committed unless it continue till death. Others say,\nthat a man sins against the Holy Ghost, who envies the grace bestowed on\nhis brother. I know no foundation for this notion. But we will adduce the\ntrue definition; which when it shall have been proved by strong\ntestimonies, will of itself easily overturn all others. I say, then, that\nthe sin against the Holy Ghost is committed by those who, though they are\nso overpowered with the splendour of Divine truth that they cannot pretend\nignorance, nevertheless resist it with determined malice, merely for the\nsake of resisting it. For Christ, in explanation of what he had asserted,\nimmediately subjoins, \u201cWhosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,\nit shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,\nit shall not be forgiven him.\u201d(1679) And Matthew, instead of \u201cblasphemy\nagainst the Spirit,\u201d says, \u201cblasphemy of the Spirit.\u201d(1680) How can any\none cast a reproach on the Son, that is not also directed against the\nSpirit? Those who unadvisedly offend against the truth of God, which they\nknow not, and who ignorantly revile Christ, but at the same time have such\na disposition that they would not extinguish the Divine truth if revealed\nto them, or utter one injurious word against him whom they knew to be the\nLord\u2019s Christ,\u2014they sin against the Father and the Son. Thus there are\nmany, in the present day, who most inveterately execrate the doctrines of\nthe gospel, which if they knew to be the evangelical doctrine, they would\nbe ready to venerate with their whole heart. But those who are convinced\nin their conscience, that it is the word of God which they reject and\noppose, and yet continue their opposition,\u2014they are said to blaspheme\nagainst the Spirit, because they strive against the illumination which is\nthe work of the Holy Spirit. Such were some among the Jews, who, when they\nwere not able to resist the Spirit(1681) that spake by Stephen, yet\nobstinately strove to resist. Many of them were undoubtedly urged to this\nconduct by a zeal for the law; but it appears that there were others, who\nwere infuriated by a malignant impiety against God himself, that is,\nagainst the doctrine which they knew to be from God. Such also were the\nPharisees, whom the Lord rebuked; who, in order to counteract the\ninfluence of the Holy Spirit, slanderously ascribed it to the power of\nBeelzebub.(1682) This, then, is \u201cblasphemy of the Spirit,\u201d where the\npresumption of man deliberately strives to annihilate the glory of God.\nThis is implied in the observation of Paul, that he \u201cobtained mercy,\nbecause\u201d he had \u201cignorantly in unbelief\u201d committed those crimes, the\ndemerits of which would otherwise have excluded him from the grace of the\nLord.(1683) If the union of ignorance and unbelief was the reason of his\nobtaining pardon, it follows that there is no room for pardon where\nunbelief has been attended with knowledge.\n\nXXIII. But, on a careful observation, you will perceive that the apostle\nspeaks not of one or more particular falls, but of the universal\ndefection, by which the reprobate exclude themselves from salvation. We\nneed not wonder that those whom John, in his canonical Epistle, affirms\nnot to have been of the number of the elect from whom they departed,\nexperience God to be implacable towards them.(1684) For he directs his\ndiscourse against those who imagined that they might return to the\nChristian religion, although they had once apostatized from it; to whom he\ncontradicts this false and pernicious notion, declaring, what is\nabsolutely true, that it is impossible for persons to return to the\ncommunion of Christ, who have knowingly and wilfully rejected it. And it\nis rejected, not by those who simply transgress the word of the Lord by a\ndissolute and licentious life, but by those who professedly renounce all\nhis doctrines. Therefore the fallacy lies in the terms _falling away_ and\n_sinning_; for the Novatians explain _falling away_ to take place, when\nany one, after having been instructed by the law of the Lord that theft\nand fornication ought not to be committed, yet abstains not from either of\nthese sins. But, on the contrary, I affirm that there is a tacit\nantithesis understood, which ought to contain a repetition of all the\nopposites of the things which had been previously mentioned; so that this\npassage expresses not any particular vice, but a universal defection from\nGod, and if I may use the expression, an apostasy of the whole man. When\nhe speaks, therefore, of some who fell away, \u201cafter they were once\nenlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers\nof the Holy Ghost, and the powers of the world to come,\u201d(1685) it must be\nunderstood of persons who, with deliberate impiety, have smothered the\nlight of the Spirit, rejected the taste of the heavenly gift, alienated\nthemselves from the sanctification of the Spirit, and trampled on the word\nof God and the powers of the world to come. And the more fully to express\nthat decided determination of impiety, he afterwards, in another place,\nadds the word _wilfully_. For when he says, that \u201cif we sin wilfully after\nthat we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more\nsacrifice,\u201d(1686) he denies not that Christ is a perpetual sacrifice to\nexpiate the iniquities of the saints, which almost the whole Epistle\nexpressly proclaims in describing the priesthood of Christ, but intends\nthat there remains no other where that is rejected. But it is rejected,\nwhen the truth of the gospel is avowedly renounced.\n\nXXIV. The objection of some, who conceive it to be severe and inconsistent\nwith the Divine clemency, that pardon should be refused to any who flee to\nthe Lord imploring his mercy, is easily answered. For he affirms not that\npardon is denied to them if they turn themselves to the Lord; but he\nabsolutely denies the possibility of their attaining to repentance,\nbecause they are stricken with eternal blindness by the righteous judgment\nof God, on account of their ingratitude. Nor is it any objection that the\nsame apostle afterwards accommodates to this subject the example of Esau,\nwho vainly endeavoured with weeping and lamentation to recover his lost\nrights of primogeniture. Nor that the prophet utters this denunciation:\n\u201cthough they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.\u201d(1687) For\nsuch forms of expression signify neither true conversion nor invocation of\nGod, but the anxiety felt by the impious in extreme calamity, which\nconstrains them to consider, what before they carelessly disregarded, that\nnothing can do them any good but the assistance of the Lord. And this they\ndo not so much implore, as bewail its being withheld from them. Therefore\nthe prophet intends by _crying_, and the apostle by _weeping_, only that\ndreadful torment which excruciates the impious with the agonies of\ndespair. This requires to be carefully observed, because otherwise this\nprocedure of God would contradict his proclamation by the mouth of the\nprophet, that as soon as the sinner shall have turned, he will be\npropitious to him.(1688) And, as I have already remarked, it is certain\nthat the human mind is not changed for the better, except by the previous\ninfluence of his grace. Nor will his promise respecting those who call\nupon him, ever deceive; but it is improper to apply the terms _conversion_\nand _prayer_ to that blind torment by which the reprobate are distracted,\nwhen they see that it is necessary for them to seek God in order to find a\nremedy for their miseries, while at the same time they continue to flee\nfrom his approach.\n\nXXV. But it is inquired, since the apostle denies that God is appeased by\na hypocritical repentance, how Ahab obtained pardon, and averted the\npunishment with which he had been threatened, though he appears, from the\nsubsequent tenor of his life, to have been only terrified by a sudden\nconsternation. He clothed himself with sackcloth, sprinkled ashes upon his\nhead, lay on the ground, and, as it is declared concerning him, \u201chumbled\nhimself before God;\u201d(1689) but it was nothing to rend his garments, while\nhis heart remained perverse and inflated with wickedness. Yet we see how\nGod is inclined to clemency. I reply, that sometimes hypocrites are thus\nspared for a season, yet that the wrath of God always abides upon them,\nand that this is done not so much for their sakes, as for a public\nexample. For what benefit did Ahab receive from the mitigation of the\nthreatened punishment, but a respite from it during his continuance in\nthis world? The malediction of God, therefore, although concealed, fixed\nitself in his family, and he himself went forward to eternal perdition.\nThe same may be observed in the case of Esau; for though he suffered a\nrepulse, yet a temporal benediction was granted to his tears.(1690) But\nsince the spiritual inheritance, according to the oracle of God, could\nremain only with one of the brothers, when Jacob was chosen and Esau\nrejected, that preterition shut out the Divine mercy; yet this consolation\nwas left to him as to a man on a level with the brutes, that he should be\nenriched with \u201cthe fatness of the earth and the dew of heaven.\u201d This is\nwhat I have just observed ought to be considered as an example to others,\nthat we may learn to devote our minds and our exertions with more alacrity\nto sincere repentance; because it is not to be doubted that those who are\ntruly and cordially converted will find God readily disposed to\nforgiveness, whose clemency extends itself even to the unworthy, as long\nas they manifest any appearance of contrition. At the same time, also, we\nare taught what dreadful vengeance awaits all the obstinate, who, with\nimpudent countenances and hardened hearts, despise, disregard, and\nridicule the Divine threatenings. Thus he frequently extended his hand to\nthe children of Israel, to alleviate their distresses, notwithstanding\ntheir supplications were hypocritical, and their hearts full of duplicity\nand perfidy; as he complains in one of the Psalms,(1691) that they\nimmediately after returned to their former courses. He designed by his\nmerciful kindness, either to bring them to a serious conversion, or to\nrender them inexcusable. Yet, by the temporary remission of punishments,\nhe imposes on himself no perpetual law, but sometimes arises against\nhypocrites with the greater severity, and enhances their punishments, to\nmanifest his extreme displeasure against hypocrisy. But he exhibits, as I\nhave observed, some examples of his readiness to pardon, in order to\nanimate the pious to a correction of their lives, and the more severely to\ncondemn the pride of those who obstinately kick against the goads.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. The Sophistry And Jargon Of The Schools Concerning Repentance,\nVery Remote From The Purity Of The Gospel. On Confession And Satisfaction.\n\n\nI come now to the discussion of those things which have been advanced by\nthe sophists of the schools concerning Repentance, which I shall run over\nas briefly as possible; for it is not my design to pursue the subject at\nlarge, lest this book, which I am endeavouring to make a compendium of\ndoctrine, should be drawn out to an immoderate extent. They have involved\na subject, otherwise not very intricate, in so many perplexities, that\nthose who have entered but a little way into their labyrinths will not\nfind it easy to extricate themselves. In the first place, the definition\nthey have given of repentance, clearly shows that they never understood\nwhat it was; for they catch at some passages in the writings of the\nfathers, which by no means express the nature of repentance; as, \u201cthat to\nrepent is to weep for sins previously committed, and not to commit sins to\nbe wept for.\u201d Again: \u201cthat it is to lament evils that are past, and not to\ncommit new ones to be lamented.\u201d Again: \u201cthat it is a kind of mournful\nvengeance, punishing in ourselves what we bewail having committed.\u201d Again:\n\u201cthat it is a sorrow of heart and bitterness of soul on account of the\nevils which a man has committed, or to which he has consented.\u201d But though\nwe concede that these expressions were properly used by the fathers,\nwhich, however, a contentious man would find no difficulty in denying, yet\nthey were used not with a view to describe repentance, but only to exhort\ntheir readers to avoid relapsing into those crimes from which they had\nbeen delivered. But if we are disposed to convert all observations of this\nkind into definitions, others may be added with equal propriety. As this\nof Chrysostom, \u201cRepentance is a medicine which destroys sin, a gift\nbestowed from heaven, an admirable virtue, a grace exceeding the power of\nlaws.\u201d Moreover, the doctrine which they afterwards advance is still worse\nthan these definitions; for they are so obstinately riveted to external\nexercises, that one can collect nothing else from immense volumes, but\nthat repentance is an austere discipline, which serves partly to subdue\nthe flesh, partly to chastise and punish vices; but concerning the\ninternal renovation of the mind, which is attended with a real reformation\nof the life, they observe a wonderful silence. Of _contrition_ and\n_attrition_, indeed, they treat largely; they torment souls with a\nmultitude of scruples, and drive them to extreme trouble and anxiety; but\nwhen they appear to have thoroughly wounded the heart, they heal all the\nbitterness by a slight sprinkling of ceremonies. Having thus quaintly\ndefined repentance, they divide it into contrition of heart, confession of\nmouth, and satisfaction of work\u2014a division which is no more agreeable to\nthe rules of logic than their definition, though they would be thought to\nhave spent their whole lives in composing syllogisms. But should any one\nreason from the definition, (which is a kind of argumentation common among\nlogicians,) that a man may weep for sins previously committed, and commit\nno more to be wept for; may lament evils that are past, and commit no more\nto be lamented; may punish what he mourns that he has committed, &c.,\nalthough he makes no confession with his mouth; how will they defend their\ndivision? For if he who confesses not, be nevertheless truly penitent,\nrepentance may exist where there is no confession. But if they reply that\nthis division refers to repentance as a sacrament, or is to be understood\nof the complete perfection of repentance, which they comprehend not in\ntheir definition, they have no reason to accuse me; let them impute the\nblame to themselves, for not giving definitions with more correctness and\nperspicuity. For myself, indeed, according to my dull capacity, in all\ncontroversies I refer every thing to the definition, which is the hinge\nand foundation of the whole argument. But, admitting this to be their\nmagisterial license, we proceed to an attentive examination of the parts\nthemselves in order. When I neglect, and pass over as frivolous, things\nwhich, with supercilious gravity, they represent as mysteries, I never do\nit without design; not that I should find it very laborious to canvass the\narguments in which they conceive themselves to have discovered most\nshrewdness and subtilty; but I could not conscientiously fatigue my\nreaders with such impertinences to no good purpose. From the questions\nwhich they raise and agitate, and with which they miserably embarrass\nthemselves, it is easy to see, that they talk of subjects of which they\nare utterly ignorant; such as this: Whether repentance for one sin be\npleasing to God during an obstinate continuance in others. Again: Whether\npunishments inflicted by God be available for satisfaction. Again: Whether\nrepentance may be frequently repeated for mortal sins. On this point they\nshamefully and impiously determine, that repentance is daily practised\nonly for venial sins. They also torment themselves much with a gross\nerror, in an expression of Jerome, \u201cThat repentance is a second plank\nafter a shipwreck;\u201d thus giving proof, that they have never been awakened\nfrom their brutish stupidity, so as to have even the most distant view of\nthe thousandth part of their sins.\n\nII. I wish the reader to consider, that this is not a contention about an\ninsignificant trifle, but a question respecting the most serious of all\nsubjects\u2014remission of sins. For by requiring, in repentance, compunction\nof heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work, they maintain,\nthat these three things are necessary to procure the remission of sins.\nBut if it be important for us to know any thing in the whole science of\nreligion, it is certainly of the greatest importance to apprehend, and\nfully to understand, by what means, by what law, on what condition, and\nwith what facility or difficulty, remission of sins may be obtained.\nUnless this knowledge be clear and certain, the conscience can have no\nrest, no peace with God, no confidence or security; but is the subject of\nperpetual trepidations and fluctuations, is disturbed, tormented, and\nharassed, and dreads, hates, and avoids the presence of God. But if\nremission of sins depend on those conditions to which they confine it, we\nare in a most miserable and deplorable situation. They make contrition the\nfirst step towards obtaining pardon, and require such as is due from us,\nthat is, such as is just and perfect; but they have not determined, when a\nman may be assured that he has arrived at this degree of perfect\ncontrition. I grant, indeed, that every man ought to be sedulously and\nearnestly urged, that by bitterly mourning for his sins, he may\ncontinually augment his displeasure and hatred against them. For this\n\u201csorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of.\u201d(1692) But\nwhen such an anguish of sorrow is required as may correspond to the\nmagnitude of the guilt, and may be weighed in the balance with confidence\nof pardon, then the wretched conscience is wonderfully tormented and\nagitated, when it sees a due contrition for sins imposed on it, and\nunderstands not the extent of the debt so as to be able to decide with\nitself that it has discharged what was due from it. If they say that we\nmust do what we can, we still return to the same point; for when will any\nman presume to flatter himself that he has exerted all his power in\nbewailing his sins? Consciences, therefore, that have been long striving\nwith themselves, and exercised in tedious conflicts, but without finding\nat length any place of rest, endeavour to procure some small alleviation,\nextorting from themselves some sorrow, and forcing out some tears to\ncomplete their contrition.\n\nIII. If they charge me with calumny, let them come forth and produce a\nsingle individual, who has not, by this doctrine of contrition, either\nbeen driven into despair, or endeavoured to avert the Divine judgment by a\npretended sorrow instead of real compunction. We have said ourselves, that\nforgiveness of sins is never enjoyed without repentance, because none but\nthose who are afflicted and wounded with a consciousness of sins, can\nsincerely implore the mercy of God; but we have likewise added, that\nrepentance is not the cause of remission of sins. But those torments of\nsoul, which they say are duties to be performed, we have put aside. We\nhave taught the sinner not to look on his compunction or on his tears, but\nto fix both his eyes solely on the mercy of God. We have only declared,\nthat Christ called the labouring and heavy\u2010laden, when he was sent \u201cto\npreach the gospel to the poor, to heal the broken\u2010hearted, to preach\ndeliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that\nare bound, and to comfort all that mourn.\u201d(1693) This would exclude the\nPharisees, who, satisfied with their own righteousness, acknowledge not\ntheir poverty; and despisers, who, careless of the wrath of God, seek no\nremedy for their disease; for such neither labour, nor are heavy\u2010laden;\nthey are not broken\u2010hearted, or in bondage, or in captivity. But there is\na considerable difference, whether a man be taught to merit remission of\nsins by a true and perfect contrition, (which no sinner can ever perform,)\nor be instructed to hunger and thirst for the Divine mercy, that by the\nknowledge of his misery, by his disquietude, fatigue, and captivity, he\nmay be shown where he ought to seek for consolation, rest, and liberty,\nand may learn to glorify God by his humility.\n\nIV. Concerning confession, there has always been a great controversy\nbetween the canonists and the scholastic divines; the latter contending,\nthat confession is commanded by the word of God; the other, on the\ncontrary, maintaining that it is enjoined only by the ecclesiastical\nconstitutions. But this controversy has discovered the singular impudence\nof the theologians, who have corrupted and violently distorted all the\npassages of Scripture which they have cited in favour of their argument.\nAnd when they perceived that they could not even thus obtain what they\ndesired, those who would appear more shrewd than others, resorted to this\nsubterfuge, that confession, as to the substance of it, came from the\nDivine law, but afterwards derived its form from a positive law. In a\nsimilar manner the most foolish lawyers pretend, that citations originated\nfrom the Divine law, because it is said, \u201cAdam, where art thou?\u201d(1694) and\nexceptions also, because Adam answered, as if by way of exception, \u201cThe\nwoman whom thou gavest to be with me,\u201d &c.; but that both received their\nform from the civil code. But let us examine by what arguments they prove\nthis confession, either formal or informal, to have been commanded by God.\nThe Lord, say they, sent leprous persons to the priests. What then? Did he\nsend them to confession? Who ever heard that the Levitical priests were\nappointed to hear confessions? Therefore they resort to allegories: it was\nenacted by the Mosaic law, that the priests should distinguish between\nleprosy and leprosy; sin is a spiritual leprosy, concerning which it is\nthe office of the priests to decide. Before I reply to this, I would\ninquire, by the way, if this passage constitutes them judges of the\nspiritual leprosy, why do they arrogate to themselves the cognizance of\nthe natural and corporeal leprosy? Is not this trifling with the\nScriptures? The law commits to the Levitical priests the cognizance of the\nleprosy; let us usurp this to ourselves. Sin is a spiritual leprosy; let\nus also take cognizance of sin. Now, I reply, \u201cThe priesthood being\nchanged, there is made, of necessity, a change also of the law.\u201d(1695) All\nthe priestly functions have been transferred to Christ; in him they are\nfulfilled and finished; therefore every privilege and honour of the\nsacerdotal office has been transferred to him alone. If they are so\nextremely fond of pursuing allegories, let them propose Christ to\nthemselves as the only priest, and accumulate on his tribunal the\nunlimited jurisdiction over all things; this we shall easily admit.\nBesides, this allegory of theirs is very absurd, since it places among the\nceremonies a law that was merely political. Why, then, does Christ send\nleprous persons to the priests? To preclude the priests from calumniating\nhim with a violation of the law, which commanded him that was cured of the\nleprosy to show himself to the priest, and to be purged by the oblation of\na sacrifice. \u201cGo (said he) show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift\nthat Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.\u201d(1696) And truly this\nmiracle was to be a testimony to them; for they had pronounced him\nleprous, now they pronounce him healed. Are they not, whether willingly or\nreluctantly, constrained to become witnesses of the miracles of Christ?\nChrist gives them his miracle for their examination; they cannot deny it;\nbut because they still cavil, this work is a testimony to them. Thus it is\nsaid, \u201cThis gospel shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto\nall nations.\u201d(1697) Again: \u201cYe shall be brought before governors and\nkings, for a testimony against them.\u201d(1698) That is, that they may be more\npowerfully convicted at the judgment of God. But if they would rather\ncoincide with Chrysostom, he also teaches, that Christ did this on account\nof the Jews, that he might not be deemed a transgressor of the law. Though\non a point so clear I am ashamed to adduce the suffrage of any man; when\nChrist declares that he leaves the legal rights entirely to the priests,\nas the professed enemies of the gospel, who were always ready to cavil, if\ntheir mouths were not stopped. Wherefore the Popish priests, in order to\nretain this possession, should publicly espouse the party of those whom it\nis necessary to restrain by force from uttering their curses against\nChrist. For with this his true ministers have no concern.\n\nV. Their second argument they derive from the same source, that is, from\nallegory; as though allegories were sufficient for the confirmation of any\ndogma. Let them be admitted as sufficient, if I do not prove that those\nvery allegories may be urged by me with more plausibility than they\npossibly can by them. They plead, therefore, that the Lord commanded his\ndisciples to loose Lazarus from his bandages, when he was raised from the\ngrave.(1699) Here, in the first place, they are guilty of falsehood; for\nit is nowhere recorded, that the Lord said this to his disciples; and it\nis much more probable that he said it to the Jews who were standing near\nhim, that the miracle might be rendered more evident, beyond all suspicion\nof fraud, and that his power might appear the greater, from his raising\nthe dead to life without the least touch, solely by the call of his voice.\nFor I apprehend, that the Lord, in order to remove from the minds of the\nJews every unfavourable suspicion, chose that they should roll back the\nstone, should perceive the fetid odour, should see the certain tokens of\ndeath, should behold him rising by the sole energy of a word, and be the\nfirst to touch him on his restoration to life. And this is the opinion of\nChrysostom. But admitting this to have been addressed to the disciples,\nwhat will they gain by it? That the Lord gave his apostles the power of\nloosing; but with how much more aptitude and skill might these words be\nhandled in an allegorical sense, if we should say, that God intended by\nthis emblem to instruct believers, that they ought to loose those whom he\nhas raised to life; that is, that they should not recall to remembrance\nthe sins which he had forgotten; that they should not condemn as sinners\nthose whom he had absolved; that they should not continue to upbraid with\noffences which he had forgiven; that where he is merciful and ready to\nspare, they should not be severe and rigorous to punish! Nothing, surely,\nought to be a stronger motive to the exercise of forgiveness by us, than\nthe example of that judge, who threatens to be implacable towards them who\nare too rigorous and cruel. Let them go now and boast of their allegories.\n\nVI. They come to a closer contest, when they oppose us with what they\napprehend to be plain passages. Those who came to the baptism of John\nconfessed their sins;(1700) and James directs us to confess our sins one\nto another.(1701) It is no wonder, if those who desired to be baptized\nconfessed their sins, for it is said, that John \u201cpreached the baptism of\nrepentance,\u201d and \u201cbaptized with water unto repentance.\u201d Whom, then, should\nhe baptize, but such as confessed themselves sinners? Baptism is an emblem\nof remission of sins; and who should be admitted to this emblem but\nsinners, and those who acknowledged themselves to be such? They confessed\ntheir sins, therefore, in order to be baptized. Nor is it without reason\nthat James directs us to confess one to another. But if they would observe\nwhat immediately follows, they would perceive, that this also affords them\nvery little support. \u201cConfess (says he) your faults one to another, and\npray for one another.\u201d He connects mutual confession and mutual prayer. If\nour confessions must be made only to priests, then our prayers ought to be\noffered up for them alone. But would it not follow from the language of\nJames, that priests alone might make confessions? For when he enjoins\nmutual confession, he addresses such only as have a right to hear the\nconfessions of others. \u0391\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 implies mutually, by turns, successively,\nor reciprocally. But none can reciprocally confess, but those who are\nqualified to hear confessions. And since they dignify the priests\nexclusively with this prerogative, we also relinquish to them alone the\ntask of making confession. Then let us dismiss such impertinences, and\nattend to the real meaning of the apostle, which is simple and clear; it\nis, that we should reciprocally communicate our infirmities to each other,\nto receive from one another mutual advice, mutual compassion, and mutual\nconsolation; and, also, that being mutually conscious of the infirmities\nof our brethren, we should pray to the Lord on their behalf. Why, then, do\nthey quote James in opposition to us, when we so strongly urge a\nconfession of the Divine mercy? But no man can confess the mercy of God,\nif he has not previously confessed his own misery. Indeed, we rather\npronounce an anathema against him who has not confessed himself a sinner\nbefore God, before his angels, before the Church, and, in a word, before\nall mankind. \u201cFor the Scripture hath concluded all under sin\u2014that every\nmouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before\nGod;\u201d(1702) and that he alone may be justified and exalted.\n\nVII. But I wonder with what face they can presume to contend, that the\nconfession of which they speak is of Divine appointment. The practice we\nadmit to be very ancient, but we can easily prove, that Christians were\nformerly quite at liberty as to the use of it. That there was no fixed law\nor constitution respecting it till the time of Innocent III., is certain\nfrom the testimony of their own histories. Surely, if there had been a\nmore ancient law, they would rather have cited it, than, by being content\nwith a decree of the Council of Lateran, have rendered themselves\nridiculous even in the eyes of children. They hesitate not in other cases\nto fabricate fictitious decrees, which they ascribe to the most ancient\ncouncils, that they may dazzle the eyes of the simple by a veneration for\nantiquity. In this instance they never thought of obtruding such a\nforgery. Therefore, according to their own testimony, three hundred years\nhave not yet elapsed, since Innocent III. introduced the snare, and\nimposed the necessity of confession. But, to say nothing respecting the\ntime, the barbarism of the diction is, of itself, sufficient to deprive\nthat law of all credit. For the good fathers enjoin, that every person, of\nboth sexes, shall, once in every year, make a particular confession of all\nsins to the proper priest; but some wits facetiously object, that this\nprecept binds none but hermaphrodites, and relates to no one who is either\na male or a female. Moreover, their disciples have betrayed still greater\nfolly, in their inability to explain what is meant by the proper priest.\nWhatever may be clamorously pretended by all the Pope\u2019s mercenary\ndisputants, we are certain, that Christ was not the author of this law,\nwhich compels men to enumerate their sins, and that twelve centuries\npassed away after the resurrection of Christ, before any such law was\npromulgated; so that this tyranny was not introduced till after the\nextinction of piety and learning, when masques, occupying the place of\npastors, had assumed an unlimited license of doing whatever they pleased.\nThere are also plain testimonies, in histories and other ancient writings,\nwhich inform us, that this was a political discipline instituted by\nbishops, not a law given by Christ or his apostles. Of a great number, I\nshall produce only one, which will be a clear proof of this assertion.\nSozomen, in his Ecclesiastical History, relates, that this ordinance of\nthe bishops was diligently observed in all the Western Churches, and\nespecially at Rome. He fully implies that it was not the universal custom\nof all the churches, and says, that one of the Presbyters was peculiarly\nappointed to this office. In this, he abundantly confutes the false\npretensions of these men, that the keys were given promiscuously, for this\nuse, to the whole sacerdotal order, since it was not the common function\nof all priests, but the peculiar department of one who was chosen to it by\nthe bishop. This is the same, who, in the present day, in every cathedral\nchurch is called the Penitentiary, who takes cognizance of crimes of\npeculiar enormity, and such as are censured for the sake of example. The\nhistorian immediately adds, that this was the custom also at\nConstantinople, till a certain matron, pretending to go to confession, was\ndiscovered to have concealed, under this specious pretext, a criminal\nconnection with the deacon of that church. On account of this crime,\nNectarius, the bishop of the church, (a man eminent for sanctity and\nerudition,) abolished the ceremony of confession. Here let them erect\ntheir asinine ears. If auricular confession had been a law of God, how\ncould Nectarius have presumed to reverse and disannul it? Will they accuse\nNectarius of heresy and schism, who is acknowledged by all the fathers to\nhave been a holy man of God? But the same sentence would condemn the\nConstantinopolitan church, in which Sozomen affirms the custom of\nconfession not only to have been discontinued for a season, but to have\nbeen altogether disused down to his time. And they would accuse of\napostasy, not only the church of Constantinople, but all the Oriental\nchurches, who neglected a law which they maintain to be inviolable and\nobligatory on all Christians.\n\nVIII. But this abrogation is plainly attested by Chrysostom, who was\nhimself also a bishop of the church of Constantinople, in so many places,\nthat it is surprising how they dare to open their mouths in contradiction\nof it. \u201cConfess your sins, (says he,) that you may obliterate them. If you\nare ashamed to tell any one what sins you have committed, confess them\ndaily in your soul. I say not, that you should confess them to your\nfellow\u2010servant, who may reproach you; confess them to God, who cures them.\nConfess your sins on your bed, that there your conscience may daily\nrecognize its crimes.\u201d Again: \u201cBut, now, it is not necessary to confess in\nthe presence of witnesses; let an inquisition into your transgressions be\nthe work of your own thoughts; let there be no witness of this judgment;\nlet God alone see you confessing.\u201d Again: \u201cI conduct you not into the\npublic view of your fellow\u2010servants; I do not oblige you to reveal your\nsins to men; lay open your conscience in the presence of God. Show your\nwounds to the Lord, who is the best physician, and implore a remedy from\nhim; show them to him, who upbraideth not, but most mercifully heals.\u201d\nAgain: \u201cYou certainly should not tell it to a man, lest he reproach you;\nnor is confession to be made to a fellow\u2010servant, who may publish it; but\nshow your wounds to the Lord, who exercises his care over you, and is a\nmost merciful physician.\u201d He afterwards introduces God, speaking thus: \u201cI\nconstrain you not to come forth into the midst of a theatre, and assemble\na multitude of witnesses; declare your sin privately to me alone, that I\nmay heal your wound.\u201d Shall we say, that Chrysostom proceeded to such a\ndegree of temerity, when he wrote those and similar passages, as to\nliberate the consciences of men from obligations imposed on them by the\nDivine law? Certainly not. But he dares not to require as necessary what\nhe knows is never prescribed in the word of God.\n\nIX. But to place the whole subject in a more plain and familiar light, we\nwill first faithfully state what kind of confession is taught in the word\nof God; and then we will subjoin an account of those inventions of the\nPapists, not indeed of all, (for who could exhaust that immense ocean?)\nbut only of those which comprise the substance of their doctrine\nrespecting secret confession. Here it grieves me to mention, how\nfrequently the old translator has translated confess instead of praise;\nwhich is well known even to the most unlearned; only it is necessary to\nexpose their audacity, in transferring to their own tyrannical edict what\nwas written with reference to the praises of God. To prove the virtue of\nconfession to exhilarate the mind, they produce this passage from the\nPsalmist: \u201cWith the voice of exultation and confession.\u201d(1703) But if such\na metamorphosis of the passage be admitted, we shall be able to infer any\nthing from any thing. But since they are thus lost to all sense of shame,\nlet the pious reader remember, that they have been consigned over to a\nreprobate mind by the righteous vengeance of God, to render their\npresumption the more detestable. If we are satisfied with the simple\ndoctrine of the Scripture, we shall be in no danger of being deluded by\nsuch fallacies; for there one method of confession is prescribed; which\nis, that since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and obliterates sins,\nwe should confess our sins to him, that we may obtain pardon. He is a\nphysician; to him, then, let us discover our wounds. He is injured and\noffended; let us pray to him for peace. He is the searcher of hearts, and\nprivy to all thoughts; let us hasten to pour out our hearts before him.\nFinally, it is he who calls sinners; let us not delay to approach him.\nDavid says, \u201cI acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not\nhid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou\nforgavest the iniquity of my sin.\u201d(1704) Similar to this is another\nconfession of David: \u201cHave mercy upon me, O God, according unto the\nmultitude of thy tender mercies.\u201d(1705) Such, also, is the confession of\nDaniel: \u201cWe have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done\nwickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts.\u201d(1706)\nAnd such are the other confessions, which frequently occur in the\nScriptures, the recital of which would almost fill a volume. John says,\n\u201cIf we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our\nsins.\u201d(1707) To whom must we confess? To him, certainly; and this we do,\nif we prostrate ourselves before him with a distressed and humbled heart;\nif we sincerely accuse and condemn ourselves in his presence, and pray to\nbe pardoned by his goodness and mercy.\n\nX. Whoever from the heart makes this confession before God, will also,\nwithout doubt, have a tongue prepared for confession, as often as it shall\nbe necessary to proclaim the Divine mercy among men; and not only to\nwhisper the secret of his mind once into the ear of an individual, but\nfrequently and publicly, and in the hearing of the whole world,\ningenuously to declare, both his own ignominy, and the magnificence and\nglory of God. In this manner, when David was reproved by Nathan, he felt\ncompunction of conscience, and confessed his sin both to God and to men:\n\u201cI have sinned (said he) against the Lord;\u201d(1708) that is, I now make no\nexcuse, nor use the least subterfuge to prevent all men from condemning me\nas a sinner, and what I wished to conceal from the Lord, from being\nrevealed also to men. The secret confession, therefore, which is made to\nGod, is followed by a voluntary confession before men, whenever it\ncontributes either to the Divine glory or to our humiliation. For this\nreason, the Lord anciently enjoined upon the Israelites, that all the\npeople should confess their iniquities publicly in the temple, by the\nmouth of the priest.(1709) For he foresaw this assistance to be necessary\nfor them, to bring every person to a proper view of himself. And it is\nreasonable, that, by the confession of our misery, we should glorify the\ngoodness and mercy of God, both among ourselves and before the whole\nworld.\n\nXI. This kind of confession ought to be both ordinary, in the Church; and\nextraordinary, to be practised in a particular manner whenever the people\nat large are chargeable with the guilt of any common crime. We have an\nexample of the latter in that solemn confession which was made by all the\npeople under the auspices of Ezra and Nehemiah. For as their long exile,\nthe destruction of their city and temple, and the subversion of their\nreligion, were punishments of the common defection of all, they could not\nproperly acknowledge the blessing of deliverance, unless they had first\nconfessed their guilt. Nor is it of any importance if, in a congregation,\nthere be sometimes a few innocent persons; for as they are members of a\nlanguid and diseased body, they ought not to boast of health. Nor is it\npossible, indeed, but they must contract some of the pollution, and\nsustain part of the guilt. Therefore, whenever we are afflicted with\npestilence, or war, or sterility, or any other calamity, if it be our duty\nto resort to mourning, to fasting, and other expressions of\nguilt,\u2014confession itself, on which all these other things depend, ought by\nno means to be neglected. The ordinary confession is not only recommended\nfrom the mouth of the Lord, but no judicious man, who has considered its\nusefulness, will venture to condemn it. For since, in every religious\nassembly, we introduce ourselves into the presence of God and angels, how\nshall we commence our services, except by an acknowledgment of our\nunworthiness? But this, you will say, is done in every prayer; for\nwhenever we pray for pardon, we make a confession of our sins. This I\nacknowledge. But, if you consider our extreme carelessness, or drowsiness,\nor stupidity, you will admit to me, that it would be a salutary\nregulation, if the generality of Christians were accustomed to humble\nthemselves by some solemn act of confession. For though the ceremony,\nwhich the Lord enjoined on the Israelites, was a part of the tutelage of\nthe law, yet the thing itself, in some measure, belongs also to us. And,\nindeed, we see that in all well\u2010regulated churches this custom is\nadvantageously observed; that on every Lord\u2019s day the minister makes a\nformal confession, in which he represents all as guilty of sin, and\nsupplicates pardon from the Lord on behalf of all. Finally, by this key\nthe gate of prayer is opened, both to individuals in private, and in\npublic to all the congregation.\n\nXII. Moreover, the Scripture sanctions two kinds of private confession;\none to be made for our own sake, which is referred to in the direction of\nJames, that we should \u201cconfess our faults one to another;\u201d(1710) for he\nmeans, that, revealing our infirmities to one another, we should assist\neach other with mutual advice and consolation; another, which is to be\nmade for the sake of our neighbour, to pacify and reconcile him to us, if\nwe have done him any injury. In the former species of confession, though\nJames, by not expressly appointing any one into whose bosom we should\ndisburden ourselves, leaves us quite at liberty to confess to any member\nof the church who shall appear most suitable; yet, since the pastors must\ngenerally be considered more proper than others, we ought chiefly to make\nchoice of them. I say that they are more suitable than others, since, in\ntheir very vocation to the ministry, they are designated by the Lord, to\ninstruct us to subdue and correct our sins, and to console us with a\nconfidence of pardon. For though the office of mutual admonition and\nreproof is committed to all, yet it is especially confided to ministers.\nAnd so, while we all ought mutually to console and confirm each other in a\nconfidence of the Divine mercy, yet we see, that ministers are constituted\nwitnesses and sureties of it, that they may afford our consciences a\nstronger assurance of the remission of sins; insomuch that they themselves\nare said to remit sins and to loose souls.(1711) When you find this\nattributed to them, consider that it is for your benefit. Therefore, let\nevery believer remember that it is his duty, if he feels such secret\nanguish or affliction from a sense of his sins, that he cannot extricate\nhimself without some exterior aid, not to neglect the remedy offered him\nby the Lord; which is, that in order to alleviate his distress, he should\nuse private confession with his pastor, and, to obtain consolation, should\nprivately implore his assistance, whose office it is, both publicly and\nprivately, to comfort the people of God with the doctrine of the gospel.\nBut we should always observe such a degree of moderation, as to lay no\nyoke on the conscience, where God has given no positive command. Hence it\nfollows, that such confession ought to be free, so as not to be required\nof all, but only to be recommended to those who conceive themselves to\nneed it. It follows also, that they who practise it on account of their\nneed of it, should neither be compelled by any precept, nor be induced by\nany artifice, to enumerate all their sins; but only so far as they shall\nthink beneficial to themselves, that they may receive solid consolation.\nFaithful pastors ought not only to leave the churches in possession of\nthis liberty, but also to defend and vindicate it with all their power, if\nthey wish to preserve their ministry from tyranny, and the people from\nsuperstition.\n\nXIII. Concerning the other species of confession, Christ says, in the\nGospel of Matthew, \u201cIf thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there\nrememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift\nbefore the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and\nthen come and offer thy gift.\u201d(1712) Thus is that charity, which has been\nbroken by our offence, to be repaired by acknowledging the fault we have\ncommitted, and imploring forgiveness. In this kind is comprehended the\nconfession of those who have sinned to the offence of the whole Church.\nFor, if Christ esteems the private offence of one man of such importance,\nas to prohibit from the sacred ordinances all those who have sinned\nagainst their brethren till they have been restored to favour by an\nadequate satisfaction,\u2014how much stronger is the reason, that he who, by\nany evil example, has injured the whole Church, should reconcile it to\nhimself by an acknowledgment of his guilt! Thus was the Corinthian\nreadmitted to the communion, after having submitted to reproof.(1713) This\nmode of confession is stated by Cyprian to have been practised in the\nancient Church. \u201cThey repent (says he) in due time; and afterwards they\ncome to confession; and by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and\nclergy, they receive a right to communion.\u201d The Scripture knows nothing of\nany other method or form of confession; and it is not our province to\nimpose new chains on men\u2019s consciences, which Christ most strictly forbids\nto reduce under the yoke of bondage. But that the sheep should present\nthemselves to their pastor, whenever they desire to partake of the sacred\nsupper, I am so far from opposing, that I earnestly wish it were\nuniversally observed. For those who experience distress of conscience may\nreceive singular benefit from such an interview; and those who require to\nbe admonished, will thus afford an opportunity for admonitions; provided\nthat care be always taken to guard against tyranny and superstition.\n\nXIV. The power of the keys is exercised in these three kinds of\nconfession: either when the whole church implores pardon by a solemn\nacknowledgment of its transgressions; or when an individual, who, by any\nremarkable crime, has occasioned a common offence, declares his\nrepentance; or when he who needs the assistance of the minister on account\nof the disquietude of his conscience, discloses his infirmity to him. The\nremoval of an offence proceeds on a different principle; because, though\nit is also designed to produce peace of conscience, yet the principal end\nis, that animosity may be destroyed, and the minds of men united in the\nbonds of peace. But this advantage, which I have mentioned, is by no means\nto be despised, that we may confess our sins with the greater readiness.\nFor, when the whole church stands, as it were, before the tribunal of God,\nwhen they confess themselves guilty, and have no refuge but in the Divine\nmercy,\u2014it is no mean or trivial consolation to have Christ\u2019s ambassador\npresent, furnished with the mandate of reconciliation, by whom they may\nhave their absolution pronounced. Here the usefulness of the keys is\ndeservedly celebrated, when this embassy is rightly performed, with\nbecoming order and reverence. So, when he who had, in some measure,\nalienated himself from the Church, is pardoned and restored to the unity\nof the brethren, how great a blessing does he experience in knowing\nhimself to be forgiven by them, to whom Christ has said, \u201cWhose soever\nsins ye shall remit on earth, they shall be remitted in heaven!\u201d(1714) Nor\nis private absolution less efficacious or beneficial, when it is requested\nby those who need a particular remedy for the relief of their infirmities.\nFor it frequently happens, that he who hears the general promises, which\nare addressed to the whole congregation of believers, nevertheless remains\nin some suspense, and his mind is still disquieted with doubts of the\nforgiveness of his sins. The same person, if he discloses to his pastor\nthe secret distress of his mind, and hears this language of the gospel\nparticularly directed to him, \u201cBe of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven\nthee,\u201d(1715) will encourage his mind to an assurance, and will be\nliberated from that trepidation with which he was before disturbed. But\nwhen we are treating of the keys, we must always be cautious not to dream\nof any power distinct from the preaching of the gospel. This subject will\nagain be discussed more fully in another place, where we shall have to\ntreat of the government of the Church; and there we shall see, that all\nthe power of binding and loosing, which Christ has conferred on the\nChurch, is inseparable from the word. But this is chiefly applicable to\nthe ministry of the keys, the whole force and meaning of which consist in\nthis, that the grace of the gospel should be confirmed and sealed, as it\nwere, to the minds of the faithful, in public as well as private, by those\nwhom the Lord has ordained to this office; which cannot be done but by\npreaching alone.\n\nXV. But what is the doctrine of the Romish divines? They maintain, that\nall persons, of both sexes, as soon as they shall have arrived at years of\ndiscretion, should, once at least in every year, confess all their sins to\ntheir own priest; that there is no remission of sin, unless they have\nfirmly resolved to confess it; that unless they fulfil this resolution,\nwhen opportunity offers, there is no admittance for them into Paradise;\nand, moreover, that the priest has the power of the keys, with which he\nmay loose the sinner or bind him; because Christ has not said in vain,\n\u201cWhatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.\u201d(1716) But\nconcerning this power, they have obstinate contentions among themselves.\nSome say, that there is essentially but one key, namely, the power of\nbinding and loosing; that knowledge is required, indeed, for the good use\nof it, but that it is only like an accessory, not an essential\nconcomitant. Others, perceiving this to be too unlimited a license, have\nmentioned two keys, discretion and power. Others, again, observing that\nthe wickedness of the priests was restrained by such moderation, have\ninvented other keys, an authority of discerning which they might use in\npronouncing decisions; and a power, which they might exert in executing\ntheir sentences; with knowledge, to assist as a counsellor. But they\nventure not to explain this binding and loosing simply to mean, forgiving\nand obliterating sins; because they hear the Lord proclaiming by the\nprophet, \u201cI am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour. I, even I, am\nhe which blotteth out thy transgressions.\u201d(1717) But they say, that it\nbelongs to the priest to pronounce who are bound or loosed, and to declare\nwhose sins are remitted or retained; and that he declares it, either by\nconfession, when he absolves and retains sins; or by his sentence, when he\nexcommunicates, and when he receives to the communion of the sacraments.\nLastly, when they perceive that they are not yet extricated from this\ndifficulty, but that it may always be objected, that their priests\nfrequently bind and loose improper persons, who are not therefore bound or\nloosed in heaven,\u2014as their last resource, they reply, that the commission\nof the keys must be understood with some limitation, Christ having\npromised, that the sentence of the priest, which has been justly\ndelivered, according to the merits of the persons bound or loosed, shall\nbe confirmed at his tribunal. They add also, that these keys were given by\nChrist to all priests, who receive them from the bishops on their\npromotion to the sacerdotal office; but that the free use of them belongs\nonly to those who exercise ecclesiastical functions; that the keys\nthemselves remain, indeed, with the excommunicated or suspended ones, but\nthat they are rusty and disused. And those who advance these things may\njustly be considered modest and sober, in comparison with others, who, on\na new anvil, have fabricated new keys, with which they tell us the\ntreasure of the Church is locked up; which we shall examine in the proper\nplace.\n\nXVI. I shall briefly reply to each of these things; though without\nnoticing, at present, the justice or injustice with which they bind the\nsouls of the faithful by their laws; as that will be considered in due\norder. But when they impose a law respecting the enumeration of all sins;\nwhen they deny that sin is forgiven, but on condition that a firm\nresolution has been formed to confess it; when they say that there remains\nno entrance into Paradise, if the opportunity of confession has been\nneglected,\u2014this is altogether intolerable. Must all sins be enumerated?\nDavid, who (I suppose) had often meditated the confession of his sins,\nnevertheless exclaimed, \u201cWho can understand his errors? cleanse thou me\nfrom secret faults.\u201d(1718) And in another place: \u201cMine iniquities are gone\nover mine head; as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.\u201d(1719) He had\njust apprehensions of the vast abyss of our sins, of the numerous species\nof our crimes, of the many heads this monster bore, and the long tail it\ndrew after it. Therefore he attempted not to detail his transgressions,\nbut from the abyss of his distresses cried to the Lord. \u201cI am afflicted\nand ready to die; my spirit is overwhelmed within me; I dwell in darkness,\nas those that have been long dead;\u201d(1720) \u201cthe sorrows of death compassed\nme, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me;\u201d(1721) \u201cI sink in deep mire;\ndeliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink.\u201d(1722) Who can now think\nof recounting his sins, when he sees that David was unable to enter on an\nenumeration of his?\n\nXVII. The souls of those who have been affected with any discoveries of\nGod, have been most cruelly tormented by this fatal delusion. First, they\ncalled themselves to an account; they divided sins into boughs, branches,\ntwigs, and leaves, according to the distinctions of these confessors: then\nthey examined the qualities, quantities, and circumstances; and the\nbusiness made some little progress. But, when they had advanced further,\nthey were surrounded on all sides by the sea and the sky, no port, no\nhaven in prospect; the more they had passed over, the greater mass was\nalways accumulating on their view; they beheld, as it were, lofty\nmountains rising before them, and no time or labour seemed to encourage\nthe least hope of escaping. Thus they remained in extreme distress, and\nafter all, found it terminate in nothing but despair. Then the remedy\napplied by those cruel murderers, to alleviate the wounds which they had\nmade, was, that every one should do to the uttermost of his ability. But\nnew cares again disturbed, and new agonies again excruciated, these\nmiserable souls: I have not devoted sufficient time; I have not applied\nwith proper diligence; I have omitted many things through negligence, and\nthe forgetfulness which arises from negligence is inexcusable. To assuage\nsuch pains, other remedies were now added: Repent of your negligence; if\nit be not too great, it will be forgiven. But all these things cannot heal\nthe wound; nor do they act as alleviations of the malady, but rather as\npoisons concealed in honey, that they may not by their harshness offend at\nthe first taste, but may penetrate into the inmost parts before they are\nperceived. This terrible injunction, therefore, is always pursuing them\nand resounding in their ears: \u201cConfess all your sins;\u201d nor can that terror\nbe appeased but by some certain consolation. Here let the reader consider\nthe possibility of taking an account of the actions of a whole year, and\nselecting the sins of every day; since experience convinces every man\nthat, when at evening he comes to examine the delinquencies of only one\nday, his memory is confounded by their great multitude and variety. I\nspeak not of stupid hypocrites, who, if they have noticed three or four\ngross sins, imagine they have discharged their duty; but of the true\nworshippers of God, who, when they find themselves overwhelmed with the\nexamination they have made, conclude, in the language of John, \u201cIf our\nheart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.\u201d(1723) They tremble,\ntherefore, before that Judge, whose knowledge far exceeds our\napprehension.\n\nXVIII. The acquiescence of a great part of the world in such soothing\narts, employed to temper this mortal poison, was not indulged from a\nbelief that God was satisfied, or because they were altogether satisfied\nthemselves; but that, like mariners, having cast anchor in the midst of\nthe sea, they might enjoy a short respite from the toils of navigation, or\nlike a fatigued and fainting traveller, might lie down in the road. I\nshall not take much trouble to establish this point for every man may be\nhis own witness of it. I will briefly state the nature of this law. First,\nit is absolutely impracticable; therefore it can only destroy, condemn,\nconfound, and precipitate into ruin and despair. In the next place, it\ndiverts sinners from a true sense of their sins, and makes them\nhypocrites, ignorant both of God and themselves. For while they are wholly\nemployed in enumerating their sins, they forget, in the mean time, that\nlatent source of vices, their secret iniquities and inward pollutions, a\nknowledge of which is above all things necessary to a consideration of\ntheir misery. But the most certain rule of confession is to acknowledge\nand confess the abyss of our guilt to be vast beyond all our\ncomprehension. The publican\u2019s confession appears to have been composed\naccording to this rule\u2014\u201cGod be merciful to me a sinner.\u201d(1724) As though\nhe had said, \u201cAll that I am is utterly sinful; I cannot reach the\nmagnitude of my sins, either with my tongue or with my mind; let the abyss\nof thy mercy swallow up this abyss of sin.\u201d But you will say, Are not\nparticular sins, then, to be confessed? Is no confession accepted by God\nunless it be comprised in these precise words, \u201cI am a sinner?\u201d I reply,\nthat we should rather endeavour, as far as we possibly can, to pour out\nour whole heart before the Lord; and not only confess ourselves sinners in\na single expression, but truly and cordially acknowledge ourselves such;\nand consider in all our reflections, how great and various is the\npollution of sin; not only that we are unclean, but the nature and extent\nof our impurity; not only that we are debtors, but the magnitude and\nnumber of the debts with which we are burdened; not only that we are\nwounded, but what a multitude of mortal wounds we have received. Yet when\nthe sinner has wholly unbosomed himself before God in this acknowledgment,\nlet him seriously and sincerely reflect, that more sins still remain, and\nthat the secret recesses of his guilt are too deep to be entirely\ndisclosed. And therefore let him exclaim with David, \u201cWho can understand\nhis errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.\u201d(1725) Now, when they\naffirm, that sins are not forgiven without a strong resolution having been\nformed to confess them, and that the gate of Paradise is shut against him\nwho has neglected an opportunity afforded him of confessing,\u2014far be it\nfrom us to make them such a concession. For there is no other remission of\nsins now than there always has been. Among all those who are said to have\nobtained remission of sins from Christ, none are said to have made a\nconfession in the ear of any priest. Nor, indeed, was it possible for them\nthus to confess, when there were no confessionary priests, and confession\nitself was altogether unknown. And this confession was unheard of for many\nages after, during which sins were forgiven without this condition. But,\nnot to debate any longer as respecting a doubtful point, \u201cthe word of God\nwhich abideth for ever,\u201d(1726) is perfectly clear: \u201cIf the wicked will\nturn from all his sins, all his transgressions that he hath committed,\nthey shall not be mentioned unto him.\u201d(1727) He who presumes to make any\naddition to this declaration, does not bind sins, but limits the mercy of\nGod. When they contend that judgment cannot be given without a trial of\nthe cause, we are prepared with an answer\u2014that they are guilty of arrogant\npresumption in creating themselves judges. And it is surprising that they\nso securely fabricate principles for themselves, which no man of sound\nunderstanding will admit. They boast that the office of binding and\nloosing is committed to them, as though it were a kind of jurisdiction\nannexed to examination. That the apostles were strangers to this\nauthority, their whole doctrine proclaims; and to know certainly whether\nthe sinner be loosed, belongs not to the priest, but to Him of whom\nabsolution is implored; since the priest who bears the confession, can\nnever know whether the enumeration of sins be true and perfect. Thus there\nwould be no absolution, but what must be restricted to the words of the\nperson to be judged. Besides, the loosing of sins depends entirely on\nfaith and repentance; which both elude the knowledge of man, when sentence\nis to be given respecting another. It follows, therefore, that the\ncertainty of binding and loosing is not subject to the decision of an\nearthly judge; because a minister, in the legitimate execution of his\noffice, can pronounce only a conditional absolution; but that the\ndeclaration, \u201c_Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted_,\u201d is spoken\nfor the sake of sinners, to preclude every doubt that the pardon, which is\npromised according to the command and word of God, will be ratified in\nheaven.\n\nXIX. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if we condemn and desire the\ntotal removal of this auricular confession\u2014a thing so pestilent, and in so\nmany respects injurious to the Church. Even if it were a thing\nabstractedly indifferent, yet, since it is of no use or benefit, but has\noccasioned so much impiety, sacrilege, and error,\u2014who can refuse to admit,\nthat it ought to be immediately abolished? They mention, indeed, some\nuses, which they boast of as very beneficial; but these are mere fictions,\nor productive of no advantage whatever. One circumstance they state as a\npeculiar recommendation, that the shame of the person who confesses is a\ngrievous punishment, by which the sinner is rendered more cautious in\nfuture, and prevents the vengeance of God by punishing himself. As though\nwe humble not a man with a sufficient degree of shame, when we summon him\nto the supreme tribunal of heaven\u2014to the cognizance of God! It is a\nwonderful advantage, indeed, if we cease to sin through a shame of one\nman, but are never ashamed of having God for a witness of our evil\nconscience! Though this very notion is utterly false; for it is\nuniversally observable, that nothing produces a greater confidence or\nlicentiousness in sinning, than the idea entertained by some men, after\nthey have made their confession to a priest, that they may \u201cwipe their\nmouth and say, I have done no wickedness.\u201d(1728) And they not only become\nmore presumptuous in their sins throughout the year, but, having no\nconcern about confession for the rest of the year, they never aspire after\nGod, they never retire into themselves, but accumulate sins upon sins,\ntill they disembogue them, as they imagine, all at once. But when they\nhave done this, they conceive themselves to be exonerated of their burden,\nand to have transferred from God the judgment they have conferred on the\npriest; and that they have deprived God of remembrance, by the information\nthey have communicated to the priest. Besides, who rejoices to see the day\nof confession approaching? Who goes to confess with alacrity of heart; and\ndoes not rather come with unwillingness and reluctance, as though he were\nforcibly dragged to a prison; except perhaps the priests, who pleasantly\nentertain themselves with mutual narrations of their exploits, as with\nhumorous anecdotes? I will not soil much paper by relating the monstrous\nabominations with which auricular confession abounds. I only remark, if\nthat holy man was not guilty of indiscretion, who, on account of one\nrumour of fornication, banished confession from his church, or rather from\nthe memory of his people,\u2014we are thus reminded of what ought to be done in\nthe present day, when rapes, adulteries, incests, and seductions exceed\nall enumeration.\n\nXX. As the advocates of confession plead the power of the keys, and rest\nupon it all the merits of their cause, we must examine the weight that is\ndue to this argument. Are the keys, then, (say they,) given without any\nreason? Is it without any cause that it is said, \u201cWhatsoever ye shall\nloose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven?\u201d(1729) Do we, then, frustrate\nthe declaration of Christ? I reply, that there was an important reason why\nthe keys should be given; as I have already stated, and shall again more\nexplicitly show, when I come to treat of excommunication. But what if I\nrefute the whole of their pretensions with one argument, that their\npriests are not vicars, or successors of the apostles? But this, also,\nwill be discussed in another place. Now, they set up, as their principal\ndefence, an engine by which their whole structure may be completely\ndemolished. For Christ never conferred on his apostles the power of\nbinding and loosing, till after he had given them the Holy Ghost. I deny,\ntherefore, that the power of the keys belongs to any, who have not\npreviously received the Holy Ghost. I deny that any one can use the keys,\nunless the Spirit guide and instruct him, and direct him how he ought to\nact. They impertinently pretend, that they have the Holy Ghost; but in\nreality they deny it; unless perhaps they imagine, as they certainly do,\nthat the Holy Ghost is a useless and worthless thing; but they will not be\nbelieved. By this weapon they are completely vanquished. Of whatever door\nthey pretend to have the key, they should always be asked, whether they\nhave the Holy Ghost, who is the arbiter and governor of the keys. If they\nreply in the affirmative, they must be questioned again, whether it be\npossible for the Holy Ghost to err. This they will not dare expressly to\navow, though they obliquely insinuate it in their doctrine. We may justly\ninfer, therefore, that no priests have the power of the keys, who, without\ndiscrimination, frequently loose what the Lord had designed to be bound,\nand bind what he had commanded to be loosed.\n\nXXI. When they find themselves convinced, by evident experience, that they\npromiscuously loose and bind the worthy and the unworthy, they arrogate to\nthemselves the power without knowledge. And though they dare not deny that\nknowledge is requisite to a good use of it, yet they tell us, that the\npower itself is committed to improper dispensers of it. But this is the\npower\u2014\u201cWhatsoever thou bindest or loosest on earth, shall be bound or\nloosed in heaven.\u201d Either the promise of Christ must be false, or the\nbinding and loosing is rightly performed by those who are endued with this\npower. Nor is there any room for them to quibble, that the declaration of\nChrist is limited according to the merits of the person that is bound or\nloosed. We also acknowledge, that none can be bound or loosed, but such as\nare worthy to be bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel, and the\nChurch, have the word as the standard of this worthiness. In this word,\nthe ministers of the gospel may promise to all remission of sins in Christ\nthrough faith; they may denounce damnation against all and upon all who\nreceive not Christ. In this word, the Church pronounces, that fornicators,\nadulterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and extortioners, have no part in\nthe kingdom of God; and binds such with the firmest bonds. In the same\nword, the Church looses and comforts those who repent.(1730) But what kind\nof power will it be, not to know what ought to be bound or loosed? and not\nto be able to bind or loose without this knowledge? Why, then, do they\nsay, that they absolve by the authority committed to them, when their\nabsolution is uncertain? Why should we concern ourselves about this\nimaginary power, if it be quite useless? But I have already ascertained,\neither that it has no existence, or that it is too uncertain to be\nconsidered of any value. For, as they confess that there are many of the\npriests who make no right use of the keys, and that the power has no\nefficacy without a legitimate use of it, who will assure me, that he by\nwhom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he be a bad one,\nwhat else does he possess but this frivolous dispensation of them: \u201cWhat\nought to be bound or loosed in you, I know not, since I am destitute of\nthe proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you?\u201d But as\nmuch as this might be done, I will not say by a layman, (since they could\nnot hear that with any patience,) but by a Turk or a devil. For it is\nequivalent to saying, \u201cI have not the word of God, which is the certain\nrule of loosing; but I am invested with authority to absolve you, on\ncondition that your merits deserve it.\u201d We see, then, what they intended,\nwhen they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power\nof executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good\nuse. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own\nlicentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.\n\nXXII. If it be objected, that the legitimate ministers of Christ will be\nequally perplexed in their office, since the absolution, which depends on\nfaith, will ever be doubtful, and that therefore sinners will have but a\nslight consolation, or none at all, since the minister himself, who is not\na competent judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution,\u2014we\nare prepared with an answer. They say, that no sins are remitted by the\npriest, but those which fall under his cognizance; thus, according to\nthem, remission depends on the judgment of the priest; and unless he\nsagaciously discerns who are worthy of pardon, the whole transaction is\nfrivolous and useless. In short, the power of which they speak is a\njurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are\nrestricted. In this statement, we find no firm footing, but rather a\nbottomless abyss; for where the confession is deficient, the hope of\npardon is also imperfect; in the next place, the priest himself must\nnecessarily remain in suspense, while he is ignorant whether the sinner\nfaithfully enumerates all his crimes; lastly, such is the ignorance and\ninexperience of priests, that the majority of them are no more qualified\nfor the exercise of this office, than a shoemaker for cultivating the\nground; and almost all the rest ought justly to be suspicious of\nthemselves. Hence, then, the perplexity and doubtfulness of the Papal\nabsolution, because they maintain it to be founded on the person of the\npriest; and not only so, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge\nof what he hears, examines, and ascertains. Now, should any one inquire of\nthese good doctors, whether a sinner be reconciled to God on the remission\nof part of his sins, I know not what answer they can give, without being\nconstrained to acknowledge the inefficacy of whatever the priest may\npronounce concerning the remission of sins which he has heard enumerated,\nas long as the guilt of others still remains. What a pernicious anxiety\nmust oppress the conscience of the person that confesses, appears from\nthis consideration, that while he relies on the discretion of the priest,\n(as they express themselves,) he decides nothing by the word of God. The\ndoctrine maintained by us, is perfectly free from all these absurdities.\nFor absolution is conditional, in such a way, that the sinner may be\nconfident that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seeks an\natonement in the sacrifice of Christ, and relies upon the grace offered to\nhim. Thus it is impossible for him to err, who, according to his duty as a\npreacher, promulgates what he has been taught by the Divine word; and the\nsinner may receive a certain and clear absolution, simply on condition of\nembracing the grace of Christ, according to that general rule of our Lord\nhimself, which has been impiously despised among the Papists\u2014\u201cAccording to\nyour faith be it unto you.\u201d(1731)\n\nXXIII. Their absurd confusion of the clear representations of the\nScripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose in\nanother place; and a more suitable opportunity will present itself, in\ndiscussing the government of the Church. But let the reader remember, that\nthey preposterously pervert to auricular and secret confession, passages\nwhich are spoken by Christ, partly of the preaching of the gospel, and\npartly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of\nloosing was committed to the apostles, which is now exercised by the\npriests in remitting the sins confessed to them, it is evidently an\nassumption of a false and frivolous principle; for the absolution\nconsequent on faith, is nothing but a declaration of pardon taken from the\ngracious promise of the gospel; but the other absolution, which depends on\necclesiastical discipline, relates not to secret sins, but is rather for\nthe sake of example, that the public offence of the Church may be removed.\nThey rake together testimonies from every quarter, to prove, that it is\nnot sufficient to make a confession of sins to God, or to laymen, unless\nthey are likewise submitted to the cognizance of a priest; but they ought\nto be ashamed of such a disgusting employment. For, if the ancient fathers\nsometimes persuade sinners to disburden themselves to their own pastor, it\ncannot be understood of a particular enumeration of sins, which was not\nthen practised. Moreover, Lombard and others of the same class have been\nso unfair, that they appear to have designedly consulted spurious books,\nin order to use them as a pretext to deceive the unwary. They do, indeed,\nproperly acknowledge, that since loosing always accompanies repentance,\nthere really remains no bond where any one has experienced repentance,\nalthough he may not yet have made a confession; and, therefore, that then\nthe priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare them to\nbe remitted. Though in the word _declare_ they insinuate a gross error,\nsubstituting a ceremony in the place of instruction; but by adding, that\nhe who had already obtained pardon before God, is absolved in the view of\nthe Church, they unseasonably apply to the particular use of every\nindividual, what we have already asserted to have been appointed as a part\nof the common discipline of the Church, when the offence of some great and\nnotorious crime requires to be removed. But they presently corrupt and\ndestroy all the moderation they had observed, by adding another mode of\nremission, that is, with an injunction of punishment and satisfaction; by\nwhich they arrogantly ascribe to their priests the power of dividing into\ntwo parts what God has every where promised as complete. For, as he simply\nrequires repentance and faith, this partition or exception is an evident\nsacrilege. For it is just as if the priest, sustaining the character of a\ntribune, should interpose his _veto_, and not suffer God of his mere\ngoodness to receive any one into favour, unless he had lain prostrate\nbefore the tribunitial seat, and there been punished.\n\nXXIV. The whole argument comes to this\u2014that if they will represent God as\nthe author of this fictitious confession, it is a full proof of their\nerror; for I have pointed out their fallacies in the few passages which\nthey quote. But since it is evident that this is a law of human\nimposition, I assert that it is also tyrannical and injurious to God, who\nbinds the consciences of men by his word, and whose will it is that they\nshould be free from the authority of men. Now, when they prescribe as a\nnecessary prerequisite to pardon that which God has chosen should be free,\nI maintain that it is an intolerable sacrilege; for nothing is more\npeculiarly the prerogative of God than the remission of sins, in which our\nsalvation consists. I have moreover proved, that this tyranny was not\nintroduced till the world was oppressed with the rudest barbarism. I have\nlikewise shown that it is a pestilent law, because, if wretched souls are\naffected with the fear of God, it precipitates them into despair; or if\nthey are in a state of careless security, it soothes them with vain\nflatteries, and renders them still more insensible. Lastly, I have stated,\nthat all the mitigations which they add, have no other tendency than to\nperplex, obscure, and corrupt the pure doctrine, and to conceal their\nimpieties under false and illusive colours.\n\nXXV. The third place in repentance they assign to _satisfaction_; all\ntheir jargon concerning which may be overturned in one word. They say,\nthat it is not sufficient for a penitent to abstain from his former sins,\nand to change his morals for the better, unless he make satisfaction to\nGod for the crimes which he has committed; and that there are many helps\nby which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings, oblations, and works\nof charity; that by these the Lord is to be propitiated, by these our\ndebts are to be paid to the Divine justice, by these we must compensate\nfor the guilt of our sins, by these we must merit pardon; for that though,\nin the plenitude of his mercy, he has remitted our sins, yet, in the\ndiscipline of justice, he retains the punishment, and that this is the\npunishment which must be redeemed by _satisfactions_. All that they say,\nhowever, comes to this conclusion\u2014that we obtain the pardon of our\ntransgressions from the mercy of God, but that it is by the intervention\nof the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins must be compensated,\nthat the Divine justice may receive the satisfaction which is due to it.\nTo such falsehoods I oppose the gratuitous remission of sins, than which\nthere is nothing more clearly revealed in the Scripture. In the first\nplace, what is remission, but a gift of mere liberality? For the creditor\nis not said to forgive, who testifies by a receipt that the debt has been\npaid, but he who, without any payment, merely through his beneficence,\nvoluntarily cancels the obligation. In the next place, why is this said to\nbe free, but to preclude every idea of satisfaction? With what confidence,\nthen, can they still set up their satisfactions, which are overthrown by\nsuch a mighty thunderbolt? But when the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, \u201cI, even\nI, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will\nnot remember thy sins,\u201d(1732) does he not evidently declare, that he\nderives the cause and foundation of forgiveness merely from his own\ngoodness? Besides, while the whole Scripture bears testimony to Christ,\nthat \u201cremission of sins\u201d is to be \u201creceived through his name,\u201d(1733) does\nit not exclude all other names? How, then, do they teach, that it is\nreceived through the name of _satisfactions_? Nor can they deny that they\nascribe this to satisfactions, although they call their intervention\n_subsidiary_. For when the Scripture states it to be \u201cthrough the name of\nChrist,\u201d it signifies, that we bring nothing, that we plead nothing, of\nour own, but rely solely on the mediation of Christ; as Paul, after\naffirming, \u201cthat God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not\nimputing their trespasses unto them,\u201d immediately adds the method and\nnature of it, \u201cfor he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for\nus.\u201d(1734)\n\nXXVI. But such is their perverseness, they reply that both remission of\nsins and reconciliation are obtained at once, when in baptism we are\nreceived into the favour of God, through Christ; that if we fall after\nbaptism, we are to be raised up again by _satisfactions_; and that the\nblood of Christ avails us nothing, any further than it is dispensed by the\nkeys of the Church. I am not speaking of a doubtful point, for they have\nbetrayed their impurity in the most explicit terms; and this is the case\nnot only of two or three, but of all the schoolmen. For their master,\nLombard, after having confessed that, according to the doctrine of Peter,\nChrist suffered the punishment of sins on the cross,(1735) immediately\ncorrects that sentiment by the addition of the following exception: that\nall the temporal punishments of sins are remitted in baptism; but that\nafter baptism they are diminished by means of repentance, so that our\nrepentance co\u00f6perates with the cross of Christ. But John speaks a very\ndifferent language: \u201cIf any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,\nJesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins: I\nwrite unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for\nhis name\u2019s sake.\u201d(1736) He certainly addresses believers, and when he\nexhibits Christ to them as the propitiation for sins, proves that there is\nno other satisfaction by which our offended God may be propitiated or\nappeased. He says not, God was once reconciled to you by Christ, now seek\nsome other means; but represents him as a perpetual advocate, who by his\nintercession restores us to the Father\u2019s favour for ever, and as a\nperpetual propitiation by which our sins are expiated. For this is\nperpetually true, that was declared by the other John, \u201cBehold the Lamb of\nGod, which taketh away the sins of the world.\u201d(1737) He takes them away\nhimself, I say, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God,\nhe alone is the oblation, the expiation, the satisfaction for sins. For\nthe right and power to forgive being the peculiar prerogative of the\nFather, as distinguished from the Son, as we have already seen, Christ is\nhere represented in another capacity, since by transferring to himself the\npunishment we deserved, he has obliterated our guilt before the throne of\nGod. Whence it follows, that we shall not be partakers of the atonement of\nChrist in any other way, unless he remain in the exclusive possession of\nthat honour, which they unjustly assume to themselves who endeavour to\nappease God by satisfactions of their own.\n\nXXVII. And here two things demand our consideration\u2014that the honour, which\nbelongs to Christ, should be preserved to him entire and undiminished; and\nthat consciences assured of the pardon of their sins, should have peace\nwith God. Isaiah says, \u201cThe Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,\u201d\nand \u201cWith his stripes we are healed.\u201d(1738) Peter, repeating the same\ntruth in different words, says, that Christ \u201cbare our sins in his own body\non the tree.\u201d(1739) Paul informs us, that \u201csin was condemned in the\nflesh,\u201d(1740) when \u201cChrist was made sin for us;\u201d(1741) that is, that the\npower and curse of sin were destroyed in his flesh, when he was given as a\nvictim, to sustain the whole load of our sins, with their curse and\nexecrations, with the dreadful judgment of God, and the condemnation of\ndeath. We cannot here listen to those foolish fictions; that after the\ninitial purgation or baptism, none of us can have any further experience\nof the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ, than in proportion to a\nsatisfactory repentance. But whenever we have fallen, the Scripture\nrecalls us to the satisfaction of Christ alone. Now, review their\npestilent follies; \u201cthat the grace of God operates alone in the first\nremission of sins; but that if we afterwards fall, our works co\u00f6perate\nwith it in the impetration of a second pardon.\u201d If these things be\nadmitted, does Christ remain exclusively possessed of what we have before\nattributed to him? How immensely wide is the difference between these\npositions\u2014that our iniquities are laid on Christ to be expiated by him,\nand that they are expiated by our own works! that Christ is the\npropitiation for our sins, and that God must be propitiated by works! But\nwith respect to pacifying the conscience, what peace will it afford any\none, to hear that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? When will he be\nassured of the accomplishment of satisfaction? Therefore he will always\ndoubt whether God be propitious to him, he will always be in a state of\nfluctuation and terror. For those who content themselves with trivial\nsatisfactions, have too contemptuous sentiments of the judgment of God,\nand reflect very little on the vast evil of sin, as we shall elsewhere\nobserve. But though we should allow them to expiate some sins by a proper\nsatisfaction, yet what will they do when they are overwhelmed with so many\nsins, that to make adequate satisfactions for them, even a hundred lives\nentirely devoted to it could not possibly be sufficient? Besides, all the\npassages in which remission of sins is declared, are not addressed to\ncatechumens, [or persons not yet baptized,] but to the regenerated sons of\nGod, and those who have been long nurtured in the bosom of the Church.\nThat embassy which Paul so splendidly extols, \u201cWe pray you in Christ\u2019s\nstead, be ye reconciled to God,\u201d(1742) is directed not to strangers, but\nto those who had already been regenerated. But, dismissing all\nsatisfactions, he sends them to the cross of Christ. Thus, when he writes\nto the Colossians, that \u201cChrist had made peace by the blood of his cross,\nand reconciled all things both in earth and in heaven,\u201d(1743) he restricts\nnot this to the moment of our reception into the Church, but extends it\nthrough our whole course; as is evident from the context, where he says\nthat believers \u201chave redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of\nsins.\u201d But it is unnecessary to accumulate more passages, which are\nfrequently occurring.\n\nXXVIII. Here they take refuge in a foolish distinction, that some sins are\n_venial_, and some _mortal_; that a great satisfaction is due for mortal\nsins; but that those which are venial are purged away by easier remedies,\nby the Lord\u2019s prayer, the aspersion of holy water, and the absolution of\nthe mass. Thus they sport and trifle with God. But though they are\nincessantly talking of venial and mortal sins, yet they have never been\nable to discriminate one from the other, except by making impiety and\nimpurity of heart a venial sin. But we maintain, according to the doctrine\nof the Scripture, the only standard of righteousness and sin, that \u201cthe\nwages of sin is death,\u201d and \u201cthe soul that sinneth, it shall die;\u201d(1744)\nbut that the sins of believers are venial, not because they are not\ndeserving of death, but because, through the mercy of God, \u201cthere is no\ncondemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;\u201d(1745) because they are\nnot imputed to them, but obliterated by a pardon. I know their unjust\ncalumnies against this doctrine of ours; they assert it to be the Stoical\nparadox concerning the equality of sins; but they will easily be refuted\nout of their own lips. For I ask, whether among those very sins which they\nconfess to be mortal, they do not acknowledge one to be greater or less\nthan another? It does not, therefore, immediately follow, that sins are\nequal because they are alike mortal. Since the Scripture declares that the\nwages of sin is death, that obedience to the law is the way of life, and\nthe transgression of it death, they cannot evade this decision. What end,\nthen, will they find to satisfactions in so great an accumulation of sins?\nIf it be the business of one day to satisfy for one sin, while they are\nemployed in that, they involve themselves in more; for the most righteous\nman cannot pass a single day without falling several times. While they\nshall be preparing themselves to make satisfaction for these, they will\naccumulate a numerous, or rather an innumerable multitude. Now, all\nconfidence in satisfaction is cut off: on what do they depend? How do they\nstill presume to think of making satisfaction?\n\nXXIX. They endeavour to extricate themselves from this difficulty, but\nwithout success. They invent a distinction between the guilt and the\npunishment; and acknowledge that the guilt is forgiven by the Divine\nmercy, but maintain, that after the remission of the guilt, there still\nremains the punishment, which the Divine justice requires to be suffered;\nand, therefore, that satisfactions properly relate to the remission of the\npunishment. What desultory levity is this! Now, they confess that\nremission of guilt is proposed as gratuitous, which they are continually\nteaching men to merit by prayers and tears, and other preparations of\nvarious kinds. But every thing delivered in the Scripture concerning\nremission of sins is diametrically opposite to this distinction. And\nthough I think I have fully established this point already, I will subjoin\nsome additional testimonies, by which our opponents will be so much\nembarrassed, as, notwithstanding all their serpentine lubricity, to be\ntotally unable ever to extricate themselves. \u201cThis is the new covenant,\u201d\nwhich God has made with us in Christ, \u201cthat he will not remember our\niniquities.\u201d(1746) The import of these expressions we learn from another\nprophet, by whom the Lord says, \u201cWhen the righteous turneth away from his\nrighteousness, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be\nmentioned. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, he shall\nsurely live, he shall not die.\u201d(1747) \u201cNot to mention righteousness,\u201d\nsignifies, not to notice it so as to reward it; and \u201cnot to remember\nsins,\u201d is, not to inflict punishment for them. This is expressed in other\npassages by the following phrases: to \u201ccast behind the back,\u201d to \u201cblot out\nas a cloud,\u201d to \u201ccast into the depths of the sea,\u201d \u201cnot to impute,\u201d to\n\u201ccover.\u201d(1748) These forms of expression would clearly convey to us the\nsense of the Holy Spirit, if we attended to them with docility. If God\npunishes sins, he certainly imputes them; if he avenges them, he remembers\nthem; if he cites them to judgment, he does not cover them; if he examines\nthem, he has not cast them behind his back; if he inspects them, he has\nnot blotted them out as a cloud; if he scrutinizes them, he has not cast\nthem into the depths of the sea. And in this manner the subject is clearly\nexplained by Augustine. \u201cIf God has covered sins, he would not look at\nthem; if he would not look at them, he would not take cognizance of them;\nif he would not take cognizance of them, he would not punish them; he\nwould not know them, he would rather forgive them. Why, then, has he said\nthat sins are covered? That they might not be seen. For what is meant by\nGod\u2019s seeing sin, but his punishing it?\u201d Let us also hear from another\npassage of the prophet, on what conditions God remits sins. \u201cThough your\nsins be as scarlet, (says he,) they shall be as white as snow; though they\nbe red like crimson, they shall be as wool.\u201d(1749) And in Jeremiah we find\nthis declaration: \u201cIn that time the iniquities of Israel shall be sought\nfor, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be\nfound; for I will pardon them whom I reserve.\u201d(1750) Would you briefly\nknow what is the meaning of these words? Consider, on the contrary, the\nimport of the following expressions: \u201cthe Lord seweth up iniquity in a\nbag;\u201d \u201ciniquity is bound up;\u201d \u201csin is hid;\u201d to \u201cwrite sins with a pen of\niron, and engrave them with the point of a diamond.\u201d(1751) If they signify\nthat God will execute vengeance, as they undoubtedly do, neither can it be\ndoubted but that, by the contrary declaration, the Lord proclaims his\nremission of all vindictive punishment. Here I must conjure my readers not\nto listen to my expositions, but only to pay some deference to the word of\nGod.\n\nXXX. What would Christ have done for us, if punishment for sins were still\ninflicted on us? For when we say, that he \u201cbare all our sins in his own\nbody on the tree,\u201d(1752) we intend only, that he sustained the vindictive\npunishment which was due to our sins. This sentiment is more significantly\nexpressed by Isaiah, when he says that the \u201cchastisement (or correction)\nof our peace was upon him.\u201d(1753) Now, what is the correction of our\npeace, but the punishment due to sins, and which we must have suffered\nbefore we could be reconciled to God, if he had not become our substitute?\nThus we see clearly, that Christ bore the punishment of sins, that he\nmight deliver his people from it. And whenever Paul mentions the\nredemption accomplished by him, he generally calls it \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,(1754)\nwhich signifies not simply redemption, as it is commonly understood, but\nthe price and satisfaction of redemption. Thus he says that Christ \u201cgave\nhimself a ransom\u201d (\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) for us.(1755) \u201cWhat propitiation is there\nwith the Lord (says Augustine) but sacrifice? And what sacrifice is there,\nbut that which has been offered for us in the death of Christ?\u201d But the\ninstitutions of the law of Moses, respecting expiations for sins, furnish\nus with a most powerful argument. For there the Lord prescribes not this\nor the other method of satisfying, but requires the whole compensation in\nsacrifices; though he specifies all the rites of expiation with the most\nparticular care, and in the most exact order. How is it that he commands\nthe expiation of sins without any works at all, requiring no other\natonement than by sacrifices, but because he intends in this way to\ndeclare, that there is only one kind of satisfaction by which his justice\nis appeased? For the sacrifices then immolated by the Israelites were not\nconsidered as the works of men, but were estimated according to their\nantitype, that is, the one sacrifice of Christ alone. The nature of the\ncompensation which the Lord receives from us is concisely and beautifully\nexpressed by Hosea: \u201cTake away (saith he) all iniquity, O Lord;\u201d here is\nremission of sins; \u201cso will we render the calves of our lips;\u201d(1756) here\nis satisfaction, [which is no other than thanksgiving.] I am aware of\nanother still more subtle evasion to which they resort, by distinguishing\nbetween eternal punishments and those which are temporal. But when they\nassert that temporal punishment is any suffering inflicted by God on the\nbody or the soul, eternal death only excepted, this limitation affords\nthem but little assistance. For the passages which we have cited above,\nexpressly signify, that God receives us into favour on this condition,\nthat in forgiving our guilt, he remits all the punishment that we had\ndeserved. And whenever David or the other prophets implore the pardon of\ntheir sins, they at the same time deprecate the punishment; and to this\nthey are impelled by an apprehension of the Divine judgment. Again: when\nthey promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always professedly speak of\npunishments, and of the remission of them. Certainly when the Lord\nannounces by Ezekiel, that he will put an end to the Babylonian captivity,\nand that for his own sake, not for the sake of the Jews, he sufficiently\nshows this deliverance to be gratuitous. Finally, if Christ delivers us\nfrom guilt, the punishments consequent upon it must necessarily cease.\n\nXXXI. But as our adversaries also, on their part, arm themselves with\ntestimonies from the Scripture, let us examine what arguments they offer.\nThey reason in this way: David, after having been reproved by Nathan the\nprophet for adultery and murder, receives the pardon of his sin; and yet\nis afterwards punished by the death of the son that was the fruit of his\nadultery.(1757) We are taught to compensate by satisfactions for such\npunishments as would be inflicted even after the remission of the guilt.\nFor Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to atone for his sins by acts of\nmercy.(1758) And Solomon says, \u201cBy mercy and truth, iniquity is\npurged.\u201d(1759) And that \u201ccharity shall cover a multitude of sins,\u201d(1760)\nis a sentiment confirmed by the united testimony of Solomon and Peter. The\nLord also says in Luke, concerning the woman that had been a sinner, \u201cHer\nsins are forgiven; for she loved much.\u201d(1761) How perversely and\npreposterously they always estimate the Divine proceedings! But if they\nhad observed, what should by no means have been overlooked, that there are\ntwo kinds of Divine judgment, they would have seen, in this correction of\nDavid, a species of punishment very different from that which may be\nconsidered as vindictive. But since it highly concerns us all to\nunderstand the design of those chastisements with which God corrects our\nsins, and how greatly they differ from the examples of his indignation\npursuing the impious and reprobate, I conceive it will not be unseasonable\nto give a summary account of them. For the sake of perspicuity, let us\ncall one _vengeance_, or _vindictive judgment_, and the other\n_chastisement_, or _disciplinary judgment_. In vindictive judgment, God is\nto be contemplated as taking vengeance on his enemies, so as to exert his\nwrath against them, to confound, dissipate, and reduce them to nothing. We\nconsider it, therefore, strictly speaking, to be the vengeance of God,\nwhen the punishment he inflicts is attended with his indignation. In\ndisciplinary judgment, he is not so severe as to be angry; nor does he\npunish in order to destroy or precipitate into perdition. Wherefore, it is\nnot properly punishment or vengeance, but correction and admonition. The\nformer is the part of a judge, the latter of a father. For a judge, when\nhe punishes an offender, attends to the crime itself, and inflicts\npunishment according to the nature and aggravations of it. When a father\ncorrects his child with severity, he does it not to take vengeance or\nsatisfaction, but rather to teach him, and render him more cautious for\nthe future. Chrysostom somewhere uses a comparison a little different,\nwhich, nevertheless, comes to the same point. \u201cA son (says he) is beaten;\na servant also is beaten; but the latter is punished as a slave, because\nhe has transgressed; the former is chastised as free and a son, that needs\nto be disciplined.\u201d Correction serves to the latter for a probation and\nreformation, to the former for a scourge and a punishment.\n\nXXXII. To obtain a clear view of the whole subject in a small compass, it\nis necessary to state two distinctions respecting it. The first is, that\nwherever there is vindictive punishment, there also is a manifestation of\nthe curse and wrath of God, which he always withholds from believers.\nChastisement, on the contrary, is, as the Scripture teaches us, both a\nblessing of God, and a testimony of his love. This difference is\nsufficiently marked in every part of the Divine word. For all the\nafflictions which the impious endure in the present life, are represented\nto us as constituting a kind of antechamber of hell, whence they already\nhave a distant prospect of their eternal damnation; and they are so far\nfrom being reformed, or receiving any benefit from this, that they are\nrather prepared by such preludes for that most tremendous vengeance which\nfinally awaits them. On the contrary, the Lord repeatedly chastises his\nservants, yet does not deliver them over to death;(1762) wherefore they\nconfess that the strokes of his rod were highly beneficial and instructive\nto them. As we every where find that the saints bore these corrections\nwith resignation of soul, so they always earnestly deprecated punishments\nof the former kind. Jeremiah says, \u201cO Lord, correct me, but with judgment;\nnot in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Pour out thy fury upon\nthe heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not upon\nthy name.\u201d(1763) And David: \u201cO Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither\nchasten me in thy hot displeasure.\u201d(1764) Nor is it any objection to this,\nthat the Lord is frequently said to be angry with his saints, when he\nchastises them for their sins. As in Isaiah: \u201cO Lord, I will praise thee;\nthough thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou\ncomfortedst me.\u201d(1765) Habakkuk also: \u201cIn wrath remember mercy.\u201d(1766) And\nMicah: \u201cI will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned\nagainst him.\u201d(1767) Which reminds us, not only that those who are justly\npunished, receive no advantage from murmuring, but that the faithful\nderive a mitigation of their sorrow from a consideration of the intention\nof God. For on the same account he is said to profane his own inheritance,\nwhich, however, we know, he never will profane.(1768) That relates not to\nthe design or disposition of God in punishing, but to the vehement sense\nof sorrow experienced by those who suffer any of his severity. He not only\ndistresses his believing people with no small degree of rigour, but\nsometimes wounds them in such a manner, that they seem to themselves to be\non the brink of infernal destruction. Thus he declares, that they have\ndeserved his wrath; and this in order that they may be displeased with\nthemselves in their distresses, may be influenced by a greater concern to\nappease God, and may hasten with solicitude to implore his pardon; but in\nthis very procedure he exhibits a brighter testimony of his clemency than\nof his wrath. The covenant still remains which was made with us in our\ntrue Solomon, and the validity of which he, who cannot deceive, has\ndeclared shall never be diminished: \u201cIf his children forsake my law, and\nwalk not in my commandments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my\ncommandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and\ntheir iniquities with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving\u2010kindness will I not\nutterly take from him.\u201d(1769) To assure us of this loving\u2010kindness, he\nsays, that the rod with which he will chastise the posterity of Solomon,\nand the stripes he will inflict on them, will be \u201cthe rod of men, and the\nstripes of the children of men.\u201d(1770) While by these phrases he signifies\nmoderation and lenity, he also implies that those who feel his hand\nexerted against them cannot but be confounded with an extreme and deadly\nhorror. How much he observes this lenity in chastising his Israel, he\nshows by the prophet: \u201cI have refined thee, (says he,) but not with\nsilver;(1771) for thou wouldst have been wholly consumed.\u201d Though he\nteaches him that chastisements serve to purify him, yet he adds that he so\nfar moderates them, that they may not exceed what he is able to bear. And\nthis is highly necessary; for the more a man reveres God and devotes\nhimself to the cultivation of piety, he is so much the more tender to bear\nhis wrath. For though the reprobate groan under his scourges, yet because\nthey consider not the cause, but rather turn their backs both on their\nsins and on the Divine judgments, from this carelessness they contract an\ninsensibility; or because they murmur and resist, and rebel against their\njudge, that furious impetuosity stupefies them with madness and rage. But\nbelievers, admonished by the Divine corrections, immediately descend to\nthe consideration of their sins, and, stricken with fear and dread, resort\nto a suppliant deprecation of punishment. If God did not mitigate these\nsorrows, with which wretched souls torment themselves, they would be\ncontinually fainting, even under slight tokens of his wrath.\n\nXXXIII. The second distinction is, that when the reprobate are lashed by\nthe scourges of God in this world, they already begin to suffer his\nvindictive punishments; and though they will not escape with impunity for\nhaving disregarded such indications of the Divine wrath, yet they are not\npunished in order to their repentance, but only that, from their great\nmisery, they may prove God to be a judge who will inflict vengeance\naccording to their crimes. On the contrary, the children of God are\nchastised, not to make satisfaction to him for their sins, but that they\nmay thereby be benefited and brought to repentance. Wherefore we see, that\nsuch chastisements relate to the future rather than the past. To express\nthis, I would prefer Chrysostom\u2019s language to my own. \u201cFor this reason\n(says he) God punishes us, not to take vengeance for our sins, but to\ncorrect us for the future.\u201d Thus also Augustine: \u201cThat which you suffer,\nand which causes you to mourn, is a medicine to you, not a punishment; a\nchastisement, and not damnation. Reject not the scourge, if you desire not\nto be rejected from the inheritance. All this misery of mankind, under\nwhich the world groans, know, brethren, that it is a medicinal sorrow, not\na penal sentence.\u201d These passages I have therefore thought proper to\nquote, that no one might consider the phraseology which I have adopted to\nbe novel or unusual. And to the same purpose are the indignant complaints\nin which the Lord frequently expostulates on account of the ingratitude of\nthe people, and their obstinate contempt of all their punishments. In\nIsaiah: \u201cWhy should ye be stricken any more? From the sole of the foot\neven unto the head there is no soundness.\u201d(1772) But as the prophets\nabound in such passages, it will be sufficient briefly to have suggested,\nthat God punishes his Church with no other design than to subdue it to\nrepentance. Therefore, when he rejected Saul from the kingdom, he punished\nhim in a vindictive manner;(1773) when he deprived David of his infant\nson, he corrected him in order to his reformation.(1774) In this sense we\nmust understand the observation of Paul: \u201cWhen we are judged, we are\nchastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the\nworld.\u201d(1775) That is, when we, the children of God, are afflicted by the\nhand of our heavenly Father, this is not a punishment to confound us, but\nonly a chastisement to instruct us. In which Augustine evidently coincides\nwith us; for he teaches that the punishments with which men are equally\nchastised by God, are to be considered in different points of view;\nbecause to the saints, after the remission of their sins, they are\nconflicts and exercises, but to the reprobate, whose sins are not\nforgiven, they are the penalties due to their iniquity. He also mentions\nthe punishments inflicted on David and other pious persons, and says, that\nthose chastisements tended to promote their humility, and thereby to\nexercise and prove their piety. And the declaration of Isaiah, that\nJerusalem\u2019s \u201ciniquity is pardoned, for she hath received of the Lord\u2019s\nhand double for all her sins,\u201d(1776) proves not the pardon of\ntransgressions to depend on the suffering of the punishment, but is just\nas though he had said, \u201cPunishments enough have now been inflicted on you;\nand as the severity and multitude of them have harassed you with a long\ncontinuance of grief and sorrow, it is time for you to receive the message\nof complete mercy, that your hearts may be expanded with joy, and\nexperience me to be your Father.\u201d For God there assumes the character of a\nFather, who repents even of his righteous severity, when he has been\nconstrained to chastise his son with any degree of rigour.\n\nXXXIV. It is necessary that the faithful should be provided with these\nreflections in the anguish of afflictions. \u201cThe time is come that judgment\nmust begin at the house of God, upon which his name is called.\u201d(1777) What\nwould the children of God do, if they believed the severity which they\nfeel to be the vengeance of God upon them? For he who, under the strokes\nof the Divine hand, considers God as an avenging Judge, cannot but\nconceive of Him as incensed against him, and hostile to him, and will\ntherefore detest his scourge itself as a curse and condemnation; in a\nword, he who thinks that God is still determined to punish him, can never\nbe persuaded to believe himself an object of the Divine love. The only one\nwho receives any benefit from the Divine chastisements, is he who\nconsiders God as angry with his crimes, but propitious and benevolent\ntowards his person. For otherwise the case must necessarily be similar to\nwhat the Psalmist complains of having experienced: \u201cThy fierce wrath goeth\nover me; thy terrors have cut me off.\u201d(1778) And what Moses also speaks\nof: \u201cFor we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.\nThou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of\nthy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend\nour years as a tale that is told.\u201d(1779) On the contrary, David, speaking\nof his paternal chastisements, in order to show that believers are rather\nassisted than oppressed by them, sings: \u201cBlessed is the man whom thou\nchastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law; that thou mayest give\nhim rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the\nwicked.\u201d(1780) It is certainly a severe temptation, when the Lord spares\nunbelievers, and conceals their crimes, while he appears more rigorous\ntowards his own children. For their consolation, therefore, he adds the\nadmonition of the law, whence they may learn, that it is for the promotion\nof their salvation when they are recalled into the way, but that the\nimpious are precipitated into their errors, which end in the pit. Nor is\nit of any importance whether the punishment be eternal or temporal. For\nwars, famines, plagues, and diseases are curses from God, as well as the\njudgment of eternal death itself, when they are inflicted as the\ninstruments of the Lord\u2019s wrath and vengeance against the reprobate.\n\nXXXV. Every one, I presume, now perceives the design of the Lord\u2019s\ncorrection of David, that it was to be a proof of God\u2019s extreme\ndispleasure against murder and adultery, with which he declared himself to\nbe so greatly offended in his beloved and faithful servant, and to teach\nDavid never again to be guilty of such crimes; but not as a punishment, by\nwhich he was to render God a satisfaction for his offence. And we ought to\nform the same judgment concerning the other correction, in which the Lord\nafflicted the people with a violent pestilence, on account of the\ndisobedience of David in numbering them. For he freely forgave David the\nguilt of his sin; but because it was necessary, as a public example to all\nages, and also to the humiliation of David, that such an offence should\nnot remain unpunished, he chastised him with extreme severity. This end we\nshould keep in view also in the universal curse of mankind. For since we\nall, even after having obtained pardon, still suffer the miseries which\nwere inflicted on our first parent as the punishment of sin, we consider\nsuch afflictions as admonitions how grievously God is displeased with the\ntransgression of his law; that being thus dejected and humbled with a\nconsciousness of our miserable condition, we may aspire with greater\nardour after true blessedness. Now, he is very unwise, who imagines that\nthe calamities of the present life are inflicted upon us as satisfactions\nfor the guilt of sin. This appears to me to have been the meaning of\nChrysostom, when he said, \u201cIf God therefore inflicts punishments on us,\nthat while we are persisting in sins he may call us to repentance,\u2014after a\ndiscovery of repentance, the punishment will be unnecessary.\u201d Wherefore he\ntreats one person with greater severity, and another with more tender\nindulgence, as he knows to be suitable to every man\u2019s particular\ndisposition. Therefore, when he means to suggest that he is not\nexcessively severe in the infliction of punishment, he reproaches an\nobdurate and obstinate people, that though they have been corrected, they\nhave not forsaken their sins.(1781) In this sense he complains, that\n\u201cEphraim is a cake not turned,\u201d(1782) that is, scorched on one side,\nunbaked on the other; because his corrections did not penetrate the hearts\nof the people, so as to expel their vices and render them proper objects\nof pardon. By expressing himself in this manner, he certainly gives us to\nunderstand, that as soon as they shall have repented, he will be\nimmediately appeased, and that the rigour which he exercises in chastising\noffences is extorted from him by our obstinacy, but would be prevented by\na voluntary reformation. Yet since our obduracy and ignorance are such as\nuniversally to need castigation, our most wise Father is pleased to\nexercise all his children, without exception, with the strokes of his rod,\nas long as they live. It is astonishing why they fix their eyes thus on\nthe example of David alone, and are unaffected by so many instances in\nwhich they might behold a gratuitous remission of sins. The publican is\nsaid to have gone down from the temple justified;(1783) no punishment\nfollows. Peter obtained the pardon of his sins. \u201cWe read,\u201d says Ambrose,\n\u201cof his tears, but not of his satisfaction.\u201d(1784) And a paralytic hears\nthe following address: \u201cBe of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven\nthee;\u201d(1785) no punishment is inflicted. All the absolutions which are\nmentioned in the Scripture, are described as gratuitous. A general rule\nought rather to be deduced from these numerous examples, than from that\nsingle case which is attended with peculiar circumstances.\n\nXXXVI. When Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to \u201cbreak off his sins by\nrighteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor,\u201d(1786) he\nmeant not to intimate that righteousness and mercy propitiate God and\natone for sins; for God forbid that there should ever be any other\nredemption than the blood of Christ. But he used the term _break off_ with\nreference to men, rather than to God; as though he had said, \u201cThou hast\nexercised, O king, an unrighteous and violent despotism; thou hast\noppressed the weak; thou hast plundered the poor; thou hast treated thy\npeople with harshness and iniquity; instead of unjust exactions, instead\nof violence and oppression, now substitute mercy and righteousness.\u201d In a\nsimilar sense Solomon says, that \u201clove covereth all sins;\u201d not with\nreference to God, but among men. For the whole verse is as follows:\n\u201cHatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins.\u201d(1787) In which\nverse, he, according to his usual custom, contrasts the evils arising from\nhatred with the fruits of love; signifying, that they who hate each other,\nreciprocally harass, criminate, reproach, revile, and convert every thing\ninto a fault; but that they who love one another, mutually conceal,\nconnive at, and reciprocally forgive, many things among themselves; not\nthat they approve each other\u2019s faults, but bear with them, and heal them\nby admonition, rather than aggravate them by invectives. Nor can we doubt\nthat Peter intended the same in his citation of this passage,(1788) unless\nwe mean to accuse him of corrupting, and craftily perverting the\nScriptures. When Solomon says, that \u201cby mercy and truth iniquity is\npurged,\u201d(1789) he intends not a compensation in the Divine view, so that\nGod, being appeased with such a satisfaction, remits the punishment which\nhe would otherwise have inflicted; but, in the familiar manner of\nScripture, he signifies, that they shall find him propitious to them who\nhave forsaken their former vices and iniquities, and are converted to him\nin piety and truth; as though he had said, that the wrath of God subsides,\nand his judgment ceases, when we cease from our sins. He describes not the\ncause of pardon, but the mode of true conversion. Just as the prophets\nfrequently declare that it is in vain for hypocrites to offer to God\nostentatious ceremonies instead of repentance, since he is only pleased\nwith integrity and the duties of charity; and as the author of the Epistle\nto the Hebrews, when he recommends us \u201cto do good and to communicate,\u201d\ninforms us that \u201cwith such sacrifices God is well pleased.\u201d(1790) And when\nChrist ridicules the Pharisees for having attended only to the cleansing\nof dishes, and neglected all purity of heart, and commands them to give\nalms that all might be clean,(1791) he is not exhorting them to make a\nsatisfaction, but only teaching them what kind of purity obtains the\nDivine approbation. But of this expression we have treated in another\nwork.(1792)\n\nXXXVII. With respect to the passage of Luke,(1793) no one, who has read\nwith a sound judgment the parable the Lord there proposes, will enter into\nany controversy with us concerning it. The Pharisee thought within\nhimself, that the Lord did not know the woman, whom he had so easily\nadmitted to his presence. For he imagined that Christ would not have\nadmitted her, if he had known what kind of a sinner she was. And thence he\ninferred that Christ, who was capable of being so deceived, was not a\nprophet. To show that she was not a sinner, her sins having already been\nforgiven, the Lord proposed this parable: \u201cThere was a certain creditor,\nwhich had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, and the other\nfifty. He frankly forgave them both. Which of them will love him most?\u201d\nThe Pharisee answered, \u201cHe to whom he forgave most.\u201d The Lord rejoins,\nHence know that \u201cthis woman\u2019s sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she\nloved much.\u201d In these words, you see, he makes her love, not the cause of\nthe remission of her sins, but the proof of it. For they are taken from a\ncomparison of that debtor to whom five hundred pence had been forgiven, of\nwhom it is said, not that his debt was forgiven, because he had loved\nmuch, but that he loved much because his debt had been forgiven. And this\nsimilitude may be applied to the case of the woman in the following\nmanner: \u201cYou suppose this woman to be a sinner; but you ought to know that\nshe is not such, since her sins are forgiven her. And her love ought to\nconvince you of the remission of her sins, by the grateful return she\nmakes for this blessing.\u201d It is an argumentum _a posteriori_, by which any\nthing is proved from its consequences. By what means she obtained\nremission of sins, the Lord plainly declares: \u201cThy faith,\u201d says he, \u201chath\nsaved thee.\u201d By faith therefore we obtain remission, by love we give\nthanks and declare the goodness of the Lord.\n\nXXXVIII. To those things which frequently occur in the works of the\nfathers concerning _satisfaction_, I pay little regard. I see, indeed,\nthat some of them, or, to speak plainly, almost all whose writings are\nextant, have either erred on this point, or expressed themselves too\nharshly. But I shall not admit that they were so ignorant and\ninexperienced, as to write those things in the sense in which they are\nunderstood by the modern advocates for satisfaction. Chrysostom somewhere\nexpresses himself thus: \u201cWhere mercy is requested, examination ceases;\nwhere mercy is implored, judgment is not severe; where mercy is sought,\nthere is no room for punishment; where there is mercy, there is no\ninquiry; where mercy is, an answer is freely given.\u201d These expressions,\nhowever they may be distorted, can never be reconciled with the dogmas of\nthe schools. In the treatise On Ecclesiastical Doctrines, which is\nascribed to Augustine, we read the following passage: \u201cThe satisfaction of\nrepentance is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to indulge an\nentrance to their suggestions.\u201d Whence it appears, that even in those\ntimes the doctrine of satisfaction, as a compensation for sins committed,\nwas universally rejected, since he refers all satisfaction to a cautious\nabstinence from sins in future. I will not quote what is further asserted\nby Chrysostom, that the Lord requires of us nothing more than to confess\nour sins before him with tears; for passages of this kind frequently occur\nin his writings, and in those of other fathers. Augustine somewhere calls\nworks of mercy \u201cremedies for obtaining remission of sins;\u201d but lest any\none should stumble at that expression, he explains himself more fully in\nanother place. \u201cThe flesh of Christ,\u201d says he, \u201cis the true and sole\nsacrifice for sins, not only for those which are all obliterated in\nbaptism, but also for those which afterwards creep in through infirmity;\non account of which the whole Church at present exclaims, Forgive us our\ndebts;(1794) and they are forgiven through that single sacrifice.\u201d\n\nXXXIX. But they most commonly used the word \u201csatisfaction\u201d to signify, not\na compensation rendered to God, but a public testification, by which those\nwho had been punished with excommunication, when they wished to be\nreadmitted to communion, gave the Church an assurance of their repentance.\nFor there were enjoined on those penitents certain fastings, and other\nobservances, by which they might prove themselves truly and cordially\nweary of their former life, or rather obliterate the memory of their past\nactions; and thus they were said to make satisfaction, not to God, but to\nthe Church. This is also expressed by Augustine in these very words, in\nhis Enchiridion ad Laurentium. From that ancient custom have originated\nthe confessions and satisfactions which are used in the present age; a\nviperous brood which retain not even the shadow of that original form. I\nknow that the fathers sometimes express themselves rather harshly; nor do\nI deny, what I have just asserted, that perhaps they have erred. But their\nwritings, which were only besprinkled with a few spots, after they have\nbeen handled by such foul hands, became thoroughly soiled. And if we must\ncontend with the authority of fathers, what fathers do they obtrude upon\nus? Most of those passages, of which Lombard, their champion, has compiled\nhis heterogeneous collection, are extracted from the insipid reveries of\nsome monks, which are circulated under the names of Ambrose, Jerome,\nAugustine, and Chrysostom. Thus, on the present argument, he borrows\nalmost every thing from a Treatise on Repentance, which is a ridiculous\nselection from various authors, good and bad; it bears the name of\nAugustine indeed, but no man even of moderate learning can deign to admit\nit as really his. For not entering into a more particular examination of\ntheir absurdities, I request the pardon of the reader, whom I wish to\nspare that trouble. It would be both easy and plausible for me to expose\nto the greatest contempt, what they have heretofore celebrated as\nmysteries; but I forbear, as my object is to write what may tend to\nedification.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V. Indulgences And Purgatory. The Supplements To Their Doctrine Of\nSatisfactions.\n\n\nThis doctrine of _satisfaction_ has given rise to _indulgences_. For by\nindulgences they pretend, that the deficiency of our abilities to make\nsatisfaction is supplied, and even proceed to the extravagance of defining\nthem to be the dispensation of the merits of Christ and of the martyrs,\nwhich the Pope distributes in his bulls. Now, though such persons are\nfitter subjects for a mad\u2010house than for arguments, so that it would be of\nlittle use to engage in refuting errors so frivolous, which have been\nshaken by many attacks, and begin of themselves to grow obsolete, and\ntotter towards a fall, yet, as a brief refutation will be useful to some\nminds hitherto uninformed on the subject, I shall not altogether omit it.\nAnd indeed the establishment and long continuance of indulgences, with the\nunlimited influence retained by them amidst such outrageous and furious\nlicentiousness, may serve to convince us in what a deep night of errors\nmen were immersed for several ages. They saw, that they were themselves\nobjects of the public and undissembled ridicule of the Pope and the\ndispensers of his bulls; that lucrative bargains were made concerning the\nsalvation of their souls; that the price of salvation was fixed at a\ntrifling sum of money, and nothing presented gratuitously; that under this\npretext, contributions were extorted from them, which were vilely consumed\non brothels, pimps, and revellings; that the greatest advocates of\nindulgences were the greatest despisers of them; that this monster was\ndaily making longer strides in licentious power and luxury, and that there\nwas no end, that more trash was continually produced, and more money\ncontinually extorted. Yet they received indulgences with the greatest\nveneration, adored them and purchased them; and those who had more\ndiscernment than others, yet considered them as pious frauds, by which\nthey might be deceived with some advantage. At length, since the world has\npermitted itself to recover a little the exercise of reason, indulgences\nbecome more and more discredited, till they altogether disappear.\n\nII. But since many, who see the pollution, imposture, robbery, and\nrapacity, with which the dispensers of indulgences have hitherto amused\nthemselves and cajoled us, do not perceive the fountain of all this\nimpiety,\u2014it will be necessary to show, not only the nature of indulgences\nas commonly used, but what they are in themselves when abstracted from\nevery adventitious blemish. The merits of Christ and of the holy apostles\nand martyrs, they style \u201cthe treasury of the Church.\u201d The principal\ncustody of this repository they pretend to have been delivered, as I have\nalready hinted, to the bishop of Rome, who has the dispensation of such\ngreat benefits, so that he can both bestow them himself, and delegate the\npower of bestowing them to others. Hence from the Pope are received\nsometimes plenary indulgences, sometimes indulgences for a certain number\nof years; from Cardinals, for a hundred days; from Bishops, for forty\ndays. But to describe them correctly, they are a profanation of the blood\nof Christ and a delusion of Satan, by which they seduce Christians from\nthe grace of God and the life which is in Christ, and turn them aside from\nthe right way of salvation. For how could the blood of Christ be more\nbasely profaned, than when it is denied to be sufficient for the remission\nof sins, for reconciliation and satisfaction, unless its deficiency be\nsupplied from some other quarter? \u201cTo him,\u201d says Peter, \u201cgive all the\nprophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall\nreceive remission of sins.\u201d(1795) Indulgences dispense remission of sins\nthrough Peter, and Paul, and the martyrs. \u201cThe blood of Jesus Christ,\u201d\nsays John, \u201ccleanseth us from all sin.\u201d(1796) Indulgences make the blood\nof the martyrs the ablution of sins. Paul says, that Christ, \u201cwho knew no\nsin, was made sin for us;\u201d that is, a satisfaction for sin, \u201cthat we might\nbe made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1797) Indulgences place\nsatisfaction for sins in the blood of the martyrs. Paul declared to the\nCorinthians, that Christ alone was crucified and died for them.(1798)\nIndulgences pronounce that Paul and others died for us. In another place\nhe says, that Christ \u201chath purchased the Church with his own blood.\u201d(1799)\nIndulgences assign another price of this purchase, in the blood of the\nmartyrs. The apostle says, that \u201cby one offering Christ hath perfected for\never them that are sanctified.\u201d(1800) Indulgences, on the contrary,\nproclaim that sanctification, which were otherwise insufficient, receives\nits perfection from the martyrs. John declares that all saints \u201chave\nwashed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.\u201d(1801) Indulgences teach us\nto wash our robes in the blood of the saints.\n\nIII. Leo, bishop of Rome, excellently opposes these sacrilegious\npretensions in his epistle to the Bishops of Palestine. \u201cAlthough the\ndeath of many saints,\u201d he says, \u201chas been precious in the sight of the\nLord, yet the murder of no innocent person has been the propitiation of\nthe world. The righteous have received, not bestowed, crowns; and from the\nfortitude of the faithful have arisen examples of patience, not gifts of\nrighteousness. For their deaths have been all singular, nor has any one by\nhis death discharged the debt of another; for it is the Lord Christ alone,\nin whom all are crucified, dead, buried, and raised from the dead.\u201d This\npassage being worthy of remembrance, he repeats it in another place.\nSurely nothing clearer can be desired, in confutation of this impious\ndoctrine of indulgences. And Augustine expresses himself with equal\npropriety to the same purpose. He says, \u201cAlthough we die, brethren for\nbrethren, yet the blood of no martyr is ever shed for the remission of\nsins. Christ has done this for us; and in doing it has not given an\nexample in which we should imitate him, but conferred a favour for which\nwe should thank him.\u201d Again, in another place: \u201cAs the Son of God alone\nbecame the Son of man, to make us with himself sons of God, so he alone,\nwithout any demerits, sustained the punishment for us, that we, without\nany merits, might through him obtain undeserved grace.\u201d Indeed, whilst\ntheir whole doctrine is a compound of horrible sacrilege and blasphemies,\nyet this is a blasphemy more monstrous than the rest. Let them acknowledge\nwhether these be not their opinions, that the martyrs have by their death\nperformed for God, and merited from him, more than was necessary for\nthemselves; that they had so great a redundance of merits, as to\nsuperabound to others; that therefore, lest so great a blessing should be\nsuperfluous, their blood is commingled with the blood of Christ, and that\nof both these is formed the treasury of the Church for the remission and\nexpiation of sins; and that in this sense we ought to understand the\ndeclaration of Paul, \u201cI fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of\nChrist in my flesh, for his body\u2019s sake, which is the Church.\u201d(1802) What\nis this but leaving Christ a mere name, and in other respects making him\nan inferior saint of the common order, scarcely distinguishable among the\nmultitude? He alone ought to have been preached, he alone exhibited, he\nalone mentioned, he alone regarded, in all discourses on the procurement\nof remission of sins, expiation, and sanctification. But let us hear their\ngrand argument: That the blood of the martyrs may not be shed in vain, let\nit be applied to the common benefit of the Church. Indeed? Was it no\nadvantage to glorify God by their death? to subscribe to his truth with\ntheir blood? to testify by their contempt of the present life, that they\nsought a better one? by their constancy, to confirm the faith of the\nChurch, and vanquish the obstinacy of their enemies? But this is the fact:\nthey acknowledge no benefit, if Christ alone be the propitiator, if he\nalone died for our sins, if he alone was offered for our redemption. Peter\nand Paul, they say, might nevertheless have obtained the crown of victory,\nif they had expired in their beds. But since they contended even to blood,\nit would be incompatible with the justice of God to leave this _barren_ or\n_unfruitful_. As if God knew not how to augment the glory of his servants\naccording to the extent of his gifts. But the Church in general receives\nan advantage sufficiently great, when by their triumphs it is inflamed\nwith the same zeal for similar exertions and conflicts.\n\nIV. But how maliciously they pervert that passage of Paul, where he says,\n\u201cthat he fills up in his own flesh that which is behind of the afflictions\nof Christ!\u201d(1803) For he refers that deficiency and supplement, not to the\nwork of redemption, satisfaction, or expiation, but to those afflictions,\nwith which the members of Christ, even all the faithful, must necessarily\nbe exercised as long as they live in the present state. He says,\ntherefore, that this remains of the afflictions of Christ, that having\nonce suffered in himself, he daily suffers in his members. Christ honors\nus so far as to consider our afflictions as his. When Paul adds that he\nsuffered \u201cfor the Church,\u201d he means not for the redemption,\nreconciliation, or atonement of the Church, but for its edification and\nprofit. As in another place he says, \u201cI endure all things for the elect\u2019s\nsakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ\nJesus.\u201d(1804) He writes to the Corinthians, that whatever tribulations he\nendured, he was \u201cafflicted for their consolation and salvation.\u201d(1805) And\nhe immediately proceeds to explain himself, by adding, that he was made a\nminister of the Church, not for its redemption, but according to the\ndispensation which had been committed to him, to preach the gospel of\nChrist.(1806) But if they require also another expositor, let them attend\nto Augustine: \u201cThe sufferings of Christ,\u201d says he, \u201care in Christ alone,\nas in the head; in Christ and the Church, as in the whole body. Whence\nPaul, one of the members, says, I fill up in my flesh that which is behind\nof the afflictions of Christ. If you, therefore, whoever you are that read\nthis, are one of the members of Christ, all that you suffer from such as\nare not members of Christ, was behind in the afflictions of Christ.\u201d But\nthe tendency of the sufferings of the apostles, sustained on account of\nthe Church, is stated by him in another place: \u201cChrist is my door to you;\nbecause you are the sheep of Christ, purchased with his blood: acknowledge\nyour price, which is not given by me, but preached by me.\u201d Then he adds,\n\u201cAs he has laid down his life, so we ought also to lay down our lives for\nthe brethren, for the establishment of peace and the confirmation of\nfaith.\u201d This is the language of Augustine. But let it not be imagined,\nthat Paul thought there was any deficiency in the sufferings of Christ,\nwith respect to all the plenitude of righteousness, salvation, and life;\nor that any addition to them was intended by him, who so clearly and\nmagnificently proclaims, that the \u201cabundance of grace by Christ\u201d was\npoured forth with such liberality, that it \u201cmuch more abounded\u201d beyond all\nthe aboundings of sin.(1807) It is not by the merit of their own life or\ndeath, but by this grace alone, that all the saints have been saved, as\nPeter expressly testifies;(1808) so that he would be guilty of an\ninjurious contempt of God and of his Christ, who should place the\nworthiness of any saint in any thing else but the mere mercy of God. But\nwhy do I dwell any longer on this subject, as though it were still\ninvolved in obscurity? whereas the statement of such monstrous notions is\nof itself a complete refutation of them.\n\nV. Now, to pass from such abominations, who taught the Pope to enclose in\nlead and parchment the grace of Jesus Christ, which the Lord designed to\nbe dispensed by the word of the gospel? Either the gospel of God must be\nfalse, or their indulgences fallacious. For that Christ is offered to us\nin the gospel, with all his plenitude of heavenly blessings, with all his\nmerits, with all his righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without any\nexception, is testified by Paul, when he says, \u201cGod hath committed unto us\nthe word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as\nthough God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ\u2019s stead, be ye\nreconciled to God. For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for\nus; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1809) And\nbelievers know the meaning of that \u201cfellowship of Christ,\u201d(1810) which,\naccording to the testimony of the same apostle, is offered to our\nenjoyment in the gospel. Indulgences, on the contrary, produce a certain\nallowance of grace from the Pope\u2019s repository, fix it to lead and\nparchment, and even to a particular place, and separate it from the word\nof God. Now, if any one inquire the origin of this abuse, it seems to have\narisen from an ancient custom, that when more severe satisfactions were\nimposed on penitents than could possibly be borne by all, they who felt\nthemselves oppressed beyond measure, petitioned the Church for some\nrelaxation of rigour. The remission granted to such persons was called\nindulgence. But when they transferred satisfactions to God, and said that\nthey were compensations, by which men might redeem themselves from the\njudgment of God, they also converted these indulgences into expiatory\nremedies, to deliver us from deserved punishments. But the blasphemies\nwhich we have mentioned have been fabricated with such consummate\nimpudence, that they have not even the least appearance of plausibility.\n\nVI. Nor let them now trouble us any more about their purgatory, since it\nis utterly demolished by this argument. For I cannot coincide with some,\nwho think it best to be silent on this point, and to omit the mention of\npurgatory, from which, they say, many sharp contentions arise, but very\nlittle edification results. Indeed, I should myself be of opinion that\nsuch trifles are unworthy of notice, if they did not consider them as\nmatters of importance. But since purgatory has been erected with a\nmultitude of blasphemies, and is daily propped by new ones, and since it\nexcites many and grievous offences, it really must not pass without\nnotice. It might be possible for a time to conceal that it was a fiction\nof curious and presumptuous temerity, unsupported by the word of God; that\nit was accredited by I know not what revelation invented by the subtlety\nof Satan; that for its confirmation some passages of Scripture were\nabsurdly perverted. The Lord, however, suffers not human presumption thus\nviolently to break into the hidden recesses of his judgment;(1811) and has\nseverely prohibited the neglect of his word and the inquiry after truth\namong the dead; and does not permit his word to be thus irreverently\ndishonoured. Nevertheless, admitting that all these things might for a\nshort time have been tolerated as matters of small importance, yet when\nexpiation of sins is sought any where but in the blood of Christ, when\nsatisfaction is transferred to any other, silence becomes dangerous in the\nextreme. Therefore we should exclaim with all our might, that purgatory is\na pernicious fiction of Satan, that it makes void the cross of Christ,\nthat it intolerably insults the Divine mercy, and weakens and overturns\nour faith. For what is their purgatory, but a satisfaction for sins paid\nafter death by the souls of the deceased? Thus the notion of satisfaction\nbeing overthrown, purgatory itself is immediately subverted from its very\nfoundations. But if it has been fully evinced, that the blood of Christ is\nthe only satisfaction, expiation, and purgation for the sins of the\nfaithful, what is the necessary inference, but that purgatory is nothing\nbut a horrible blasphemy against Christ? I pass by the sacrilegious\npretences with which it is daily defended, the offences which it produces\nin religion, and the other innumerable evils which we perceive to have\nproceeded from such a source of impiety.\n\nVII. It is worth while, however, to wrest out of their hands those\npassages of Scripture, which they have falsely and corruptly pressed into\ntheir service. The assertion of the Lord, that the sin against the Holy\nGhost \u201cshall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world\nto come,\u201d(1812) implies, they say, that there is a forgiveness of some\nsins in the world to come. But who does not see, that the Lord there\nspeaks of the guilt of sin? And if this be the case, what has it to do\nwith their purgatory, for there they suppose punishment to be inflicted\nfor sins, the guilt of which they do not deny to have been forgiven in the\npresent life? But to prevent all further cavils, they shall have a plainer\nanswer. When the Lord intended to cut off from such flagitious iniquity\nall hope of pardon, he thought it not sufficient to say that it should\nnever be forgiven; but for the sake of further amplification he adopted a\ndistinction, comprehending both the judgment which the conscience of every\nindividual feels in this life, and that final judgment which will be\npublicly held at the resurrection; as though he had said, \u201cBeware of\nmalicious rebellion, as of immediate perdition; for he who shall have\npurposely endeavoured to extinguish the offered light of the Spirit, shall\nnever obtain pardon, neither in this life, which is allotted to sinners\nfor their conversion, nor in the last day, when the lambs shall be\nseparated from the goats by the angels of God, and the kingdom of heaven\nshall be purged from every offence.\u201d They next adduce this parable from\nMatthew: \u201cAgree with thine adversary; lest at any time the adversary\ndeliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and\nthou be cast into prison. Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till\nthou hast paid the uttermost farthing.\u201d(1813) If in this place the judge\nsignify God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, the prison\npurgatory, I will readily submit to them. But if it be evident to every\none, that Christ there intended to show to how many dangers and calamities\npersons exposed themselves, who prefer obstinately exerting the rigour of\nthe law, to acting upon the principles of equity and kindness, in order\nthe more earnestly to exhort his disciples to an equitable concord, pray\nwhere will purgatory be found?\n\nVIII. They derive an argument from the language of Paul, where he has\naffirmed, \u201cthat at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in\nheaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.\u201d(1814) For they\nassume it as granted, that \u201cthings (or persons) under the earth\u201d cannot be\nunderstood of those who are consigned to eternal damnation. It follows,\ntherefore, that they must be the souls suffering in purgatory. Their\nreasoning would not be very bad, if, by genuflection, the apostle designed\ntruly pious worship; but since he simply teaches, that dominion is\ncommitted to Christ, by which all creatures must be subjugated, why may we\nnot understand this phrase of the devils, who will indeed stand at the\ntribunal of the Lord, and acknowledge him as their Judge with fear and\ntrembling? As Paul himself elsewhere explains the same prophecy: \u201cWe shall\nall stand,\u201d says he, \u201cbefore the judgment seat of Christ. For it is\nwritten, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,\u201d &c.(1815)\nBut they reply, we cannot give the same kind of interpretation to this\npassage in the Revelation: \u201cEvery creature which is in heaven, and on the\nearth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are\nin them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be\nunto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and\never.\u201d(1816) This I readily concede; but what creatures do they suppose to\nbe here enumerated? for it is very certain, that the expressions\ncomprehend creatures both irrational and inanimate. It is a mere\ndeclaration that all the parts of the world, from the summit of the\nheavens to the centre of the earth, celebrate, in their respective ways,\nthe glory of the Creator. What they produce from the history of the\nMaccabees, I shall not honour with an answer, that I may not be supposed\nto place that work in the catalogue of sacred books. But Augustine, they\nsay, received it as canonical. I inquire, first, With what degree of\ncredit did he receive it? He says, \u201cThe history of the Maccabees is not\nesteemed by the Jews as the law, and the prophets, and the Psalms, to\nwhich the Lord gives a testimony, as being witnesses concerning him,\nsaying, \u2018All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of\nMoses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.\u2019(1817) But\nit has been received by the Church, and not altogether unprofitably, if it\nbe read or heard with sobriety,\u201d &c. Jerome, without any scruple,\ninculcates, that its authority is of no force in the support of doctrines.\nAnd from that old treatise on the Exposition of the Creed, which is\nascribed to Cyprian, it clearly appears that it was not admitted in the\nancient Church. But why am I now contending to no purpose? as though the\nauthor himself did not sufficiently show what deference is due to him,\nwhen, at the conclusion, he begs pardon if he should have spoken any thing\nimproperly. Certainly he who confesses that his writings need pardon,\nproclaims them not to be the oracles of the Holy Spirit. Besides, the\npiety of Judas Maccabeus is commended on no other ground, but because he\nhad a firm hope of the final resurrection, when he sent to Jerusalem an\noblation for the dead. Nor does the historian represent this oblation as\nintended to be a price of redemption, but that those in whose names it was\noffered might be partakers of eternal life with the rest of the faithful\nwho had died in defence of their country and religion. This action was\naccompanied, indeed, by superstition and preposterous zeal; but they are\nmore than infatuated who apply to us a sacrifice offered under the law;\nsince we know, that all such ancient usages ceased at the advent of\nChrist.\n\nIX. But they find in Paul an invincible argument, which cannot be so\neasily answered. \u201cIf any man,\u201d says he, \u201cbuild upon this foundation gold,\nsilver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man\u2019s work shall be\nmade manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed\nby fire; and the fire shall try every man\u2019s work, of what sort it is. If\nany man\u2019s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall\nbe saved; yet so as by fire.\u201d(1818) What can this be, they ask, but\npurgatorial fire, by which the pollution of sins is cleansed, that we may\nenter pure into the kingdom of God? But most of the fathers were of a\ndifferent opinion, understanding the word \u201cfire\u201d to mean tribulation, or\nthe cross, by which the Lord tries his children, to purify them from all\ncarnal pollution; and this is much more probable than the notion of\npurgatory. I cannot, however, coincide with them; for I think I have\ndiscovered a far more certain and lucid interpretation of this passage.\nBut before I state it, I could wish them to answer this question\u2014whether\nthey suppose it was necessary for the apostles and all the saints to pass\nthrough this purgatorial fire. I know they will answer in the negative;\nfor it were too absurd, that purification should be necessary to those\nwhose redundant merits they vainly imagine to superabound to all the\nmembers of the Church. But the apostle affirms this; for he says, not that\nthe work of some, but that the work of all, shall be proved. Nor is this\nmy own argument, but Augustine\u2019s, who thus opposes the interpretation now\nadopted by our adversaries. And, what would be still more absurd, he says,\nnot that they shall pass through the fire on account of any works, but\nthat if they have edified the Church with perfect fidelity, they shall\nreceive a reward, when their work shall have been tried by fire. In the\nfirst place, we see that the apostle uses a metaphor, when he calls\ndoctrines of human invention \u201cwood, hay, stubble.\u201d The reason of the\nmetaphor also is evident; that as wood, immediately on being placed in\ncontact with fire, consumes and wastes away, so neither will those\ndoctrines be able to abide the test of examination. Now, it is well known\nthat such an examination proceeds from the Spirit of God. Therefore, to\npursue the thread of the metaphor, and to adapt the parts by a proper\nrelation to each other, he gives the Holy Spirit\u2019s examination the\nappellation of _fire_. For as gold and silver afford a more certain proof\nof their goodness and purity in proportion to their proximity to the fire,\nso Divine truth receives the stronger confirmation of its authority, in\nproportion to the strictness of spiritual examination by which it is\ninvestigated. As wood, hay, and stubble, brought into contact with fire,\nare speedily consumed, so the inventions of men, unsupported by the word\nof God, cannot bear the examination of the Holy Spirit, but must\nimmediately fall to the ground. Finally, if false doctrines are compared\nto wood, hay, and stubble, because, like wood, hay, and stubble, they are\nconsumed by fire and entirely destroyed, and if they are overcome only by\nthe Spirit of the Lord, it follows that the Spirit is that fire by which\nthey will be proved. This trial Paul calls _the day_, or _the day of the\nLord_, according to the common phraseology of Scripture. For that is\ncalled the day of the Lord, whenever he manifests his presence to men.\nNow, we enjoy most of the light of his countenance when we are favoured\nwith the radiance of his truth. It has been evinced that Paul means no\nother fire than the examination of the Holy Spirit. But how are they saved\nby the fire, who suffer the loss of their work? This it will not be\ndifficult to comprehend, if we consider of what class of men he is\nspeaking. For he characterizes them as builders of the Church, who retain\ntheir legitimate foundation, but raise the superstructure of unequal\nmaterials: they are such as do not deviate from the principal and\nessential articles of the faith, but err in inferior and less important\nones, mixing their own inventions with the word of God. Such, I say, must\nsuffer the loss of their work, by their inventions being destroyed; but\nthey are themselves saved, yet so as by fire; that is, not because their\nignorance and error can be approved by the Lord, but because they are\npurified from them by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore,\nwhoever have corrupted the pure gold of the Divine word with this filth of\npurgatory, must necessarily suffer the loss of their work.\n\nX. Our opponents will reply, that it has been a very ancient opinion in\nthe Church. Paul removes this objection when he comprehends even his own\nage in this sentence, where he denounces, that all must suffer the loss of\ntheir work, who, in the structure of the Church, should place any thing\nnot corresponding to the foundation. When our adversaries, therefore,\nobject to me, that to offer prayers for the dead has been the practice of\nmore than thirteen hundred years, I inquire of them, on the contrary, by\nwhat word of God, by what revelation, by what example, it is sanctioned.\nFor they are not only destitute of any testimonies of Scripture in favour\nof it, but none of the examples of the saints there recorded exhibit any\nthing like it. Respecting mourning and funeral offices, it contains many\nand sometimes long accounts; but of prayers for persons deceased, you\ncannot discover the smallest hint. But the greater the importance of the\nsubject, so much the rather ought it to have been particularly mentioned.\nEven the fathers themselves, who offered up prayers for the dead, saw that\nthey had neither a Divine command, nor a legitimate example, to justify\nthe practice. Why, then, did they presume to adopt it? In this, I say,\nthey discovered themselves to be but men; and therefore I contend, that\nwhat they did ought not to be enforced for the imitation of others. For\nsince believers ought not to undertake any thing without an assurance of\nconscience, according to the direction of Paul,(1819) this assurance is\nchiefly requisite in prayer. Yet it will be urged, It is probable that\nthey were impelled to it by some reason. I reply, Perhaps they sought some\nconsolation to alleviate their sorrow, and it might appear inhuman not to\ngive some testimony of their love towards the dead in the presence of God.\nThe propensity of the human mind to this affection, all men know by\nexperience. The custom, also, when received, was like a flame, kindling\nardour in the minds of multitudes. We know that funeral rites have been\nperformed to the dead among all nations, and in every age, and that\nlustrations have been annually made for their departed spirits. For though\nSatan has deluded foolish mortals with these fallacies, yet he has\nborrowed the occasion of the deception from a true principle\u2014that death is\nnot an annihilation, but a transition from this life into another. Nor can\nit be doubted, but that even superstition itself convicts the heathen\nbefore the tribunal of God, for neglecting all the concerns of a future\nlife, which they professed to believe. Now, Christians, because they would\nnot be inferior to the heathen, were ashamed to perform no services for\nthe dead, as though they had wholly ceased to exist. Hence that\ninconsiderate officiousness; because if they were negligent in attending\nto funerals, feasts, and oblations, they were afraid they should expose\nthemselves to great disgrace. What first proceeded from a perverse\nemulation, has been so repeatedly augmented by novel additions, that the\nprincipal sanctity of Popery consists in relieving the distresses of the\ndead. But the Scripture administers another consolation, far better and\nmore substantial, when it declares that \u201cBlessed are the dead which die in\nthe Lord;\u201d and adds as a reason, \u201cthat they may rest from their\nlabours.\u201d(1820) But we ought not to indulge our own affection so far as to\nintroduce a corrupt method of praying into the Church. Certainly, he that\nhas but a moderate share of penetration, will easily discover all that we\nfind on this subject in the fathers to have been in compliance with\ngeneral practice and vulgar ignorance. I confess, they were also involved\nin the error themselves, from an inconsiderate credulity which frequently\ndeprives the human mind of its judgment. But in the mean time, the mere\nreading of them demonstrates with what hesitation they recommend prayers\nfor the dead. Augustine, in his Book of Confessions, relates that Monica,\nhis mother, had vehemently entreated to be remembered in the celebration\nof the mysteries at the altar. This was the wish of an old woman, which\nher son did not examine by the standard of Scripture; but from his natural\naffection for her, wished it to gain the approbation of others. But the\ntreatise composed by him, on Care for the Dead, contains so many\nhesitations, that it ought by its coolness to extinguish the heat of\nimprudent zeal. If any one desires to be an intercessor for the dead, this\ntreatise, with its frigid probabilities, will certainly remove all the\nsolicitude he may have previously experienced. For this is its only\nsupport, that since it has been customary to pray for the dead, it is a\nduty not to be despised. But though I concede, that the ancient writers of\nthe Church esteemed it a pious act to pray for the dead, yet we must\nalways remember a rule which can never deceive\u2014that it is not right for us\nin our prayers to introduce any thing of our own, but that our desires\nmust be submitted to the word of God; because he chooses to prescribe what\nhe designs we should ask. Now, since there is not a syllable, in all the\nlaw or the gospel, which allows us to pray for the dead, it is a profane\nabuse of the name of God, to attempt more than he enjoins. But that our\nadversaries may not glory, as though the ancient Church were associated\nwith them in their error, I assert that there is a considerable difference\nbetween them. The ancients preserved the memory of the dead, that they\nmight not seem to have cast off all concern for them; but they at the same\ntime confessed their uncertainty concerning their state. Respecting\npurgatory they asserted nothing, but considered it as quite uncertain. The\nmoderns expect their reveries concerning purgatory to be admitted as\nunquestionable articles of faith. The fathers, in the communion of the\nsacred supper, merely recommended their deceased friends to the mercy of\nGod. The Papists are incessantly urging a concern for the dead; and by\ntheir importunate declamations cause it to be preferred to all the duties\nof charity. Besides, it would not be difficult for us to produce some\ntestimonies from the fathers which manifestly overthrow all those prayers\nfor the dead which were then used. Such is this of Augustine; when he\nteaches that all men expect the resurrection of the body and eternal\nglory, and that every individual enters on the fruition of that rest which\nfollows after death, if he is worthy of it when he dies. Therefore he\ndeclares that all the pious, as well as the prophets, apostles, and\nmartyrs, enjoy a blessed repose immediately after death. If such be their\ncondition, what advantage will our prayers confer on them? I pass over\nthose grosser superstitions with which they have fascinated the minds of\nthe simple; which nevertheless are innumerable, and for the most part so\nmonstrous, that they cannot be varnished over by any honest pretext. I\nomit, also, that most disgraceful traffic which they licentiously carried\non while the world was in such a state of stupidity. For I should never\narrive at a conclusion, and I have already furnished the pious reader with\nsufficient to establish his conscience.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI. The Life Of A Christian. Scriptural Arguments And Exhortations\nTo It.\n\n\nWe have said that the end of regeneration is, that the life of believers\nmay exhibit a symmetry and agreement between the righteousness of God and\ntheir obedience; and that thus they may confirm the adoption by which they\nare accepted as his children. But though the law of God contains in it\nthat newness of life by which his image is restored in us, yet since our\ntardiness needs much stimulation and assistance, it will be useful to\ncollect from various places of Scripture a rule for the reformation of the\nlife, that they who cordially repent may not be bewildered in their\npursuits. Now, when I undertake the regulation of a Christian\u2019s life, I\nknow that I am entering on an argument various and copious, and the\nmagnitude of which might fill a large volume, if I designed a complete\ndiscussion of every part of it. For we see to what great prolixity the\nfathers have extended the exhortations composed by them only on single\nvirtues; and that without any excessive loquacity; for, whatever virtue it\nis intended to recommend in an oration, the copiousness of the matter\nnaturally produces such a diffusiveness of style, that unless you have\nspoken largely, you seem not to have done justice to the subject. But my\ndesign is not to extend the plan of life, which I am now about to deliver,\nso far as particularly to discourse on each distinct virtue, and expatiate\ninto exhortations. These things may be sought in the writings of others,\nespecially in the homilies of the fathers. It will be sufficient for me if\nI point out a method by which a pious man may be conducted to the right\nend in the regulation of his life, and briefly assign a universal rule, by\nwhich he may properly estimate his duties. There will, perhaps, at some\nfuture period be a suitable opportunity for declamations; or I shall leave\nto others an office for which I am not calculated. I am naturally fond of\nbrevity; and, perhaps, were I desirous of speaking in a more copious\nmanner, I should not succeed. And if a more prolix method of teaching were\nmost acceptable, yet I should scarcely be inclined to make the trial. The\nplan of the present work, however, requires me to treat a simple doctrine\nwith all possible brevity. As the philosophers have certain principles of\nrectitude and honour, whence they deduce particular duties and the whole\ncircle of virtues, so the Scripture is not without its order in this\nrespect, but maintains an economy superlatively beautiful, and far more\ncertain, than all the systems of the philosophers. There is only this\ndifference\u2014that, the philosophers being ambitious men, they have\nsedulously affected an exquisite perspicuity of method, in order to make\nan ostentatious display of their ingenious dexterity. But the Spirit,\nwhose teaching is void of affectation, has not so exactly or perpetually\nobserved a methodical plan; which, nevertheless, by using it in some\nplaces, he sufficiently indicates ought not to be neglected by us.\n\nII. This Scripture plan, of which we are now treating, consists chiefly in\nthese two things\u2014the first, that a love of righteousness, to which we have\notherwise no natural propensity, be instilled and introduced into our\nhearts; the second, that a rule be prescribed to us, to prevent our taking\nany devious steps in the race of righteousness. Now, in the recommendation\nof righteousness, it uses a great number of very excellent arguments, many\nof which we have before noticed on different occasions, and some we shall\nbriefly touch on in this place. With what better foundation can it begin,\nthan when it admonishes us that we ought to be holy, because _our God is\nholy_?(1821) For when we were dispersed like scattered sheep, and lost in\nthe labyrinth of the world, he gathered us together again, that he might\nassociate us to himself. When we hear any mention of our union with God,\nwe should remember, that holiness must be the bond of it; not that we\nattain communion with him by the merit of holiness, (since it is rather\nnecessary for us, in the first place, to adhere to him, in order that,\nbeing endued with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls;) but\nbecause it is a peculiar property of his glory not to have any intercourse\nwith iniquity and uncleanness. Wherefore also it teaches, that this is the\nend of our vocation, which it is requisite for us always to keep in view,\nif we desire to correspond to the design of God in calling us. For to what\npurpose was it that we were delivered from the iniquity and pollution of\nthe world, in which we had been immerged, if we permit ourselves to wallow\nin them as long as we live? Besides, it also admonishes us that, to be\nnumbered among the people of God, we must inhabit the holy city\nJerusalem;(1822) which, he having consecrated it to himself, cannot\nwithout impiety be profaned by impure inhabitants. Whence these\nexpressions: \u201cHe shall abide in the tabernacle of the Lord, that walketh\nuprightly and worketh righteousness,\u201d &c.,(1823) because it is very\nunbecoming the sanctuary which he inhabits, to be rendered as filthy as a\nstable.\n\nIII. And as a further incitement to us, it shows, that as God the Father\nhas reconciled us to himself in Christ, so he has exhibited to us in him a\npattern, to which it is his will that we should be conformed.(1824) Now,\nlet those who are of opinion that the philosophers have the only just and\norderly systems of moral philosophy, show me, in any of their works, a\nmore excellent economy than that which I have stated. When they intend to\nexhort us to the sublimest virtue, they advance no argument but that we\nought to live agreeably to nature; but the Scripture deduces its\nexhortation from the true source, when it not only enjoins us to refer our\nlife to God the author of it, to whom it belongs, but, after having taught\nus, that we are degenerated from the original state in which we were\ncreated, adds, that Christ, by whom we have been reconciled to God, is\nproposed to us as an example, whose character we should exhibit in our\nlives. What can be required more efficacious than this one consideration?\nindeed, what can be required besides? For if the Lord has adopted us as\nhis sons on this condition,\u2014that we exhibit in our life an imitation of\nChrist the bond of our adoption,\u2014unless we addict and devote ourselves to\nrighteousness, we not only most perfidiously revolt from our Creator, but\nalso abjure him as our Saviour. The Scripture derives matter of\nexhortation from all the blessings of God which it recounts to us, and\nfrom all the parts of our salvation. It argues, that since God has\ndiscovered himself as a Father to us, we must be convicted of the basest\ningratitude, unless we, on our part, manifest ourselves to be his\nchildren; that since Christ has purified us in the laver of his blood, and\nhas communicated this purification by baptism, it does not become us to be\ndefiled with fresh pollution; that since he has united us to his body, we\nshould, as his members, solicitously beware lest we asperse ourselves with\nany blemish or disgrace; that since he who is our Head has ascended to\nheaven, we ought to divest ourselves of all terrestrial affection, and\naspire thither with all our soul; that since the Holy Spirit has dedicated\nus as temples to God, we should use our utmost exertions, that the glory\nof God may be displayed by us; and ought not to allow ourselves to be\nprofaned with the pollution of sin; that since both our soul and our body\nare destined to heavenly incorruption and a never\u2010fading crown, we ought\nto exert our most strenuous efforts to preserve them pure and uncorrupt\ntill the day of the Lord. These, I say, are the best foundations for the\nproper regulation of the life, such as we cannot find in the philosophers;\nwho, in the recommendation of virtue, never rise above the natural dignity\nof man.\n\nIV. This is a proper place to address those who have nothing but the name\nand the symbol of Christ, and yet would be denominated Christians. But\nwith what face do they glory in his sacred name? For none have any\nintercourse with Christ but those who have received the true knowledge of\nhim from the word of the gospel. Now, the apostle denies that any have\nrightly learned Christ, who have not been taught that they must put off\nthe old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on\nChrist.(1825) Their knowledge of Christ, then, is proved to be a false and\ninjurious pretence, with whatever eloquence and volubility they may talk\nconcerning the gospel. For it is a doctrine not of the tongue, but of the\nlife; and is not apprehended merely with the understanding and memory,\nlike other sciences, but is then only received, when it possesses the\nwhole soul, and finds a seat and residence in the inmost affection of the\nheart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God by boasting\nthemselves to be what they are not, or show themselves disciples not\nunworthy of Christ, their Master. We have allotted the first place to the\ndoctrine which contains our religion, because it is the origin of our\nsalvation; but that it may not be unprofitable to us, it must be\ntransfused into our breast, pervade our manners, and thus transform us\ninto itself. If the philosophers are justly incensed against, and banish\nwith disgrace from their society, those who, while they profess an art\nwhich ought to be a rule of life, convert it into a sophistical\nloquacity,\u2014with how much better reason may we detest those sophists who\nare contented to have the gospel on their lips, whilst its efficacy ought\nto penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, to dwell in the soul, and\nto affect the whole man with a hundred times more energy than the frigid\nexhortations of the philosophers!\n\nV. Yet I would not insist upon it as absolutely necessary, that the\nmanners of a Christian should breathe nothing but the perfect gospel;\nwhich, nevertheless, ought both to be wished and to be aimed at. But I do\nnot so rigorously require evangelical perfection as not to acknowledge as\na Christian, one who has not yet attained to it; for then all would be\nexcluded from the Church; since no man can be found who is not still at a\ngreat distance from it; and many have hitherto made but a very small\nprogress, whom it would, nevertheless, be unjust to reject. What then? let\nus set before our eyes that mark, to which alone our pursuit must be\ndirected. Let that be prescribed as the goal towards which we must\nearnestly tend. For it is not lawful for you to make such a compromise\nwith God, as to undertake a part of the duties prescribed to you in his\nword, and to omit part of them, at your own pleasure. For, in the first\nplace, he every where recommends integrity as a principal branch of his\nworship; by which he intends a sincere simplicity of heart, free from all\nguile and falsehood; the opposite of which is a double heart; as though it\nhad been said, that the beginning of a life of uprightness is spiritual,\nwhen the internal affection of the mind is unfeignedly devoted to God in\nthe cultivation of holiness and righteousness. But since no man in this\nterrestrial and corporeal prison has strength sufficient to press forward\nin his course with a due degree of alacrity, and the majority are\noppressed with such great debility, that they stagger and halt, and even\ncreep on the ground, and so make very inconsiderable advances,\u2014let us\nevery one proceed according to our small ability, and prosecute the\njourney we have begun. No man will be so unhappy, but that he may every\nday make some progress, however small. Therefore, let us not cease to\nstrive, that we may be incessantly advancing in the way of the Lord; nor\nlet us despair on account of the smallness of our success; for however our\nsuccess may not correspond to our wishes, yet our labour is not lost, when\nthis day surpasses the preceding one; provided that, with sincere\nsimplicity, we keep our end in view, and press forward to the goal, not\npractising self\u2010adulation, nor indulging our own evil propensities, but\nperpetually exerting our endeavours after increasing degrees of\namelioration, till we shall have arrived at a perfection of goodness,\nwhich, indeed, we seek and pursue as long as we live, and shall then\nattain, when, divested of all corporeal infirmity, we shall be admitted by\nGod into complete communion with him.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII. Summary Of The Christian Life. Self\u2010Denial.\n\n\nAlthough the Divine law contains a most excellent and well\u2010arranged plan\nfor the regulation of life, yet it has pleased the heavenly Teacher to\nconform men by a more accurate doctrine to the rule which he had\nprescribed in the law. And the principle of that doctrine is this\u2014that it\nis the duty of believers to \u201cpresent their bodies a living sacrifice,\nholy, acceptable unto God;\u201d(1826) and that in this consists the legitimate\nworship of him. Hence is deduced an argument for exhorting them, \u201cBe not\nconformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your\nmind, that ye may prove what is that will of God.\u201d This is a very\nimportant consideration, that we are consecrated and dedicated to God;\nthat we may not hereafter think, speak, meditate, or do any thing but with\na view to his glory. For that which is sacred cannot, without great\ninjustice towards him, be applied to unholy uses. If we are not our own,\nbut the Lord\u2019s, it is manifest both what error we must avoid, and to what\nend all the actions of our lives are to be directed. We are not our own;\ntherefore neither our reason nor our will should predominate in our\ndeliberations and actions. We are not our own; therefore let us not\npropose it as our end, to seek what may be expedient for us according to\nthe flesh. We are not our own; therefore let us, as far as possible,\nforget ourselves and all things that are ours. On the contrary, we are\nGod\u2019s; to him, therefore, let us live and die. We are God\u2019s; therefore let\nhis wisdom and will preside in all our actions. We are God\u2019s; towards him,\ntherefore, as our only legitimate end, let every part of our lives be\ndirected. O, how great a proficiency has that man made, who, having been\ntaught that he is not his own, has taken the sovereignty and government of\nhimself from his own reason, to surrender it to God! For as compliance\nwith their own inclinations leads men most effectually to ruin, so to\nplace no dependence on our own knowledge or will, but merely to follow the\nguidance of the Lord, is the only way of safety. Let this, then, be the\nfirst step, to depart from ourselves, that we may apply all the vigour of\nour faculties to the service of the Lord. By service I mean, not that only\nwhich consists in verbal obedience, but that by which the human mind,\ndivested of its natural carnality, resigns itself wholly to the direction\nof the Divine Spirit. Of this transformation, which Paul styles a\nrenovation of the mind,(1827) though it is the first entrance into life,\nall the philosophers were ignorant. For they set up Reason as the sole\ndirectress of man; they think that she is exclusively to be attended to;\nin short, to her alone they assign the government of the conduct. But the\nChristian philosophy commands her to give place and submit to the Holy\nSpirit; so that now the man himself lives not, but carries about Christ\nliving and reigning within him.(1828)\n\nII. Hence also that other consequence, that we should seek not our own\nthings, but those which are agreeable to the will of the Lord, and\nconducive to the promotion of his glory. This also argues a great\nproficiency, that almost forgetting ourselves, and certainly neglecting\nall selfish regards, we endeavour faithfully to devote our attention to\nGod and his commandments. For when the Scripture enjoins us to discard all\nprivate and selfish considerations, it not only erases from our minds the\ncupidity of wealth, the lust of power, and the favour of men, but also\neradicates ambition and all appetite after human glory, with other more\nsecret plagues. Indeed, a Christian man ought to be so disposed and\nprepared, as to reflect that he has to do with God every moment of his\nlife. Thus, as he will measure all his actions by his will and\ndetermination, so he will refer the whole bias of his mind religiously to\nhim. For he who has learned to regard God in every undertaking, is also\nraised above every vain imagination. This is that denial of ourselves,\nwhich Christ, from the commencement of their course, so diligently enjoins\non his disciples; which, when it has once obtained the government of the\nheart, leaves room neither for pride, haughtiness, or ostentation, nor for\navarice, libidinousness, luxury, effeminacy, or any other evils which are\nthe offspring of self\u2010love. On the contrary, wherever it does not reign,\nthere either the grossest vices are indulged without the least shame; or,\nif there exist any appearance of virtue, it is vitiated by a depraved\npassion for glory. Show me, if you can, a single individual, who, unless\nhe has renounced himself according to the command of the Lord, is\nvoluntarily disposed to practise virtue among men. For all who have not\nbeen influenced by this disposition, have followed virtue merely from the\nlove of praise. And even those of the philosophers who have ever contended\nthat virtue is desirable for its own sake, have been inflated with so much\narrogance, that it is evident they desired virtue for no other reason than\nto furnish them occasion for the exercise of pride. But God is so far from\nbeing delighted, either with those who are ambitious of popular praise, or\nwith hearts so full of pride and presumption, that he pronounces \u201cthey\nhave their reward\u201d in this world, and represents harlots and publicans as\nnearer to the kingdom of heaven than such persons. But we have not yet\nclearly stated the number and magnitude of the obstacles by which a man is\nimpeded in the pursuit of that which is right, as long as he has refrained\nfrom all self\u2010denial. For it is an ancient and true observation, that\nthere is a world of vices concealed in the soul of man. Nor can you find\nany other remedy than to deny yourself and discard all selfish\nconsiderations, and to devote your whole attention to the pursuit of those\nthings which the Lord requires of you, and which ought to be pursued for\nthis sole reason, because they are pleasing to him.\n\nIII. The same apostle, in another place, gives a more distinct, though a\nbrief, representation of all the parts of a well\u2010regulated life. \u201cThe\ngrace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching\nus, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,\nrighteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed\nhope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus\nChrist, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all\niniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good\nworks.\u201d(1829) For after having proposed the grace of God to animate us, in\norder to prepare the way for us truly to worship God, he removes two\nobstacles, which are our chief impediments; first, ungodliness, to which\nwe have naturally too strong a propensity, and secondly, worldly lusts,\nwhich extend themselves further. The term \u201cungodliness\u201d not only denotes\nsuperstitions, but comprehends also every thing that is repugnant to the\nserious fear of God. And \u201cworldly lusts\u201d mean the carnal affections.\nTherefore he enjoins us, with reference to both tables of the law, to\nforsake our former propensities, and to renounce all the dictates of our\nown reason and will. He reduces all the actions of life to three\nclasses\u2014sobriety, righteousness, and godliness. \u201cSobriety\u201d undoubtedly\ndenotes chastity and temperance, as well as a pure and frugal use of\ntemporal blessings, and patience under poverty. \u201cRighteousness\u201d includes\nall the duties of equity, that every man may receive what is his due.\n\u201cGodliness\u201d separates us from the pollutions of the world, and by true\nholiness unites us to God. When these virtues are indissolubly connected,\nthey produce absolute perfection. But since nothing is more difficult than\nto forsake all carnal considerations, to subdue and renounce our\nappetites, to devote ourselves to God and our brethren, and to live the\nlife of angels amidst the corruptions of the world,\u2014in order to extricate\nour minds from every snare, Paul recalls our attention to the hope of a\nblessed immortality; apprizing us that our efforts are not in vain;\nbecause, as Christ once appeared as a Redeemer, so, at his final advent,\nhe will manifest the benefits of the salvation he has obtained. Thus he\ndispels the fascinations which blind us, and prevent our aspiring with\nbecoming ardour to the glories of heaven, and at the same time teaches us\nthat we must live as strangers and pilgrims in the world, that we may not\nlose the heavenly inheritance.\n\nIV. In these words we perceive, that self\u2010denial relates partly to men,\nbut partly, and indeed principally, to God. For when the Scripture enjoins\nus to conduct ourselves in such a manner towards men, as in honour to\nprefer one another, and faithfully to devote our whole attention to the\npromotion of their advantage,(1830) it gives such commands as our heart\ncan by no means receive, without having been previously divested of its\nnatural bias. For we are all so blinded and fascinated with self\u2010love,\nthat every one imagines he has a just right to exalt himself, and to\nundervalue all others who stand in competition with him. If God has\nconferred on us any valuable qualification, relying thereon, our hearts\nare immediately lifted up; and we not only swell, but almost burst with\npride. The vices in which we abound, we sedulously conceal from others,\nand flatter ourselves with the pretence that they are diminutive and\ntrivial, and even sometimes embrace them as virtues. If the same talents\nwhich we admire in ourselves, or even superior ones, appear in others, in\norder that we may not be obliged to acknowledge their superiority, we\ndepreciate and diminish them with the utmost malignity: if they have any\nvices, not content to notice them with severe and sharp animadversions, we\nodiously amplify them. Hence that insolence, that every one of us, as if\nexempted from the common lot, is desirous of pre\u2010eminence above the rest\nof mankind; and severely and haughtily contemns every man, or at least\ndespises him as an inferior. The poor yield to the rich, plebeians to\nnobles, servants to masters, the illiterate to the learned; but there is\nno man who does not cherish within him some idea of his own excellence.\nThus all men, in flattering themselves, carry, as it were, a kingdom in\ntheir own breast; for arrogating to themselves the height of self\u2010\ngratulation, they pass censure on the understandings and conduct of\nothers; but if any contention arises, it produces an eruption of the\npoison. For many discover some gentleness, as long as they find every\nthing pleasant and amiable; but how many are there who preserve the same\nconstant course of good humour when they are disturbed and irritated? Nor\nis there any other remedy, than the eradication from the inmost recesses\nof the heart of this most noxious pest of ambition and self\u2010love; as it is\nindeed eradicated by the doctrine of the Scripture. For if we attend to\nits instructions, we must remember, that the talents with which God has\nfavoured us, are not excellences originating from ourselves, but free\ngifts of God; of which if any are proud, they betray their ingratitude.\n\u201cWho maketh thee to differ?\u201d saith Paul. \u201cNow, if thou didst receive all\nthings, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received them?\u201d(1831) In\nthe next place, by assiduous observation and acknowledgment of our faults,\nwe must recall our minds to humility. Thus there will remain in us nothing\nto inflate us, but great reason for dejection. On the other hand, we are\nenjoined, whatever gifts of God we perceive in others, to revere and\nesteem them, so as to honour those in whom they reside. For it would\nbetray great wickedness in us to rob them of that honour which God has\ngiven them. Their faults we are taught to overlook, not indeed to\nencourage them by adulation, but never on account of them to insult those\nwhom we ought to cherish with benevolence and honour. The result of\nattention to these directions will be, that with whomsoever we are\nconcerned, we shall conduct ourselves not only with moderation and good\nhumour, but with civility and friendship. For we shall never arrive at\ntrue meekness by any other way, than by having our hearts imbued with\nself\u2010abasement and a respect for others.\n\nV. How extremely difficult it is for you to discharge your duty in seeking\nthe advantage of your neighbour! Unless you quit all selfish\nconsiderations, and, as it were, lay aside yourself, you will effect\nnothing in this duty. For how can you perform those which Paul inculcates\nas works of charity, unless you renounce yourself, and devote yourself\nwholly to serve others? \u201cCharity,\u201d says he, \u201csuffereth long, and is kind;\ncharity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth\nnot behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked,\u201d\n&c.(1832) If this be all that is required, that we seek not our own, yet\nwe must do no small violence to nature, which so strongly inclines us to\nthe exclusive love of ourselves, that it does not so easily permit us to\nneglect ourselves and our own concerns in order to be vigilant for the\nadvantage of others, and even voluntarily to recede from our right, to\nresign it to another. But the Scripture leads us to this, admonishes us,\nthat whatever favours we obtain from the Lord, we are intrusted with them\non this condition, that they should be applied to the common benefit of\nthe Church; and that, therefore, the legitimate use of all his favours, is\na liberal and kind communication of them to others. There cannot be\nimagined a more certain rule, or a more powerful exhortation to the\nobservance of it, than when we are taught, that all the blessings we enjoy\nare Divine deposits, committed to our trust on this condition, that they\nshould be dispensed for the benefit of our neighbours. But the Scripture\ngoes still further, when it compares them to the powers with which the\nmembers of the human body are endued. For no member has its power for\nitself, nor applies it to its private use; but transfuses it among its\nfellow\u2010members, receiving no advantage from it but what proceeds from the\ncommon convenience of the whole body. So, whatever ability a pious man\npossesses, he ought to possess it for his brethren, consulting his own\nprivate interest in no way inconsistent with a cordial attention to the\ncommon edification of the Church. Let this, then, be our rule for\nbenignity and beneficence,\u2014that whatever God has conferred on us, which\nenables us to assist our neighbour, we are the stewards of it, and must\none day render an account of our stewardship; and that the only right\ndispensation of what has been committed to us, is that which is regulated\nby the law of love. Thus we shall not only always connect the study to\npromote the advantage of others with a concern for our own private\ninterests, but shall prefer the good of others to our own. To teach us\nthat the dispensation of the gifts we receive from heaven ought to be\nregulated by this law, God anciently enjoined the same even in regard to\nthe smallest bounties of his liberality. For he commanded the people to\noffer to him the first\u2010fruits of the corn, as a solemn avowal that it was\nunlawful for them to enjoy any blessings not previously consecrated to\nhim. And if the gifts of God are not sanctified to us till after we have\nwith our own hands dedicated them to their Author, that must evidently be\na sinful abuse which is unconnected with such a dedication. But in vain\nwould you attempt to enrich the Lord by a communication of your\npossessions. Therefore, since your \u201cgoodness extendeth not to him,\u201d(1833)\nas the Psalmist says, you must exercise it \u201ctowards the saints that are in\nthe earth;\u201d and alms are compared to sacred oblations, to show that these\nexercises of charity under the gospel, correspond to those offerings under\nthe law.\n\nVI. Moreover, that we may not be weary of doing good, which otherwise\nwould of necessity soon be the case, we must add also the other character\nmentioned by the apostle, that \u201ccharity suffereth long, and is not easily\nprovoked.\u201d The Lord commands us to do \u201cgood unto all men,\u201d(1834)\nuniversally, a great part of whom, estimated according to their own\nmerits, are very undeserving; but here the Scripture assists us with an\nexcellent rule, when it inculcates, that we must not regard the intrinsic\nmerit of men, but must consider the image of God in them, to which we owe\nall possible honour and love; but that this image is most carefully to be\nobserved in them \u201cwho are of the household of faith,\u201d(1835) inasmuch as it\nis renewed and restored by the Spirit of Christ. Whoever, therefore, is\npresented to you that needs your kind offices, you have no reason to\nrefuse him your assistance. Say that he is a stranger; yet the Lord has\nimpressed on him a character which ought to be familiar to you; for which\nreason he forbids you to despise your own flesh.(1836) Say that he is\ncontemptible and worthless; but the Lord shows him to be one whom he has\ndeigned to grace with his own image. Say that you are obliged to him for\nno services; but God has made him, as it were, his substitute, to whom you\nacknowledge yourself to be under obligations for numerous and important\nbenefits. Say that he is unworthy of your making the smallest exertion on\nhis account; but the image of God, by which he is recommended to you,\ndeserves your surrender of yourself and all that you possess. If he not\nonly has deserved no favour, but, on the contrary, has provoked you with\ninjuries and insults,\u2014even this is no just reason why you should cease to\nembrace him with your affection, and to perform to him the offices of\nlove. He has deserved, you will say, very different treatment from me. But\nwhat has the Lord deserved? who, when he commands you to forgive men all\ntheir offences against you, certainly intends that they should be charged\nto himself. This is the only way of attaining that which is not only\ndifficult, but utterly repugnant to the nature of man\u2014to love them who\nhate us,(1837) to requite injuries with kindnesses, and to return\nblessings for curses.(1838) We should remember, that we must not reflect\non the wickedness of men, but contemplate the Divine image in them; which,\nconcealing and obliterating their faults, by its beauty and dignity\nallures us to embrace them in the arms of our love.\n\nVII. This mortification, therefore, will not take place in us unless we\nfulfil all the duties of charity. These are fulfilled, not by him who\nmerely performs all the external offices of charity, even without the\nomission of one, but by him who does this from a sincere principle of\nlove. For it may happen, that a man may fully discharge his duty to all\nmen, with respect to external actions, and, at the same time, be very far\nfrom discharging it in the right way. For you may see some men who would\nbe thought extremely liberal, and yet never bestow any thing without\nupbraiding, either by pride of countenance, or by insolence of language.\nAnd we are sunk to such a depth of calamity in this unhappy age, that\nscarcely any alms are given, at least by the majority of mankind, but in a\nhaughty and contemptuous manner\u2014a corruption which ought not to have been\ntolerated even among heathen; for of Christians there is something further\nrequired, than to display a cheerfulness of countenance, and to render\ntheir benefactions amiable by civility of language. In the first place,\nthey ought to imagine themselves in the situation of the person who needs\ntheir assistance, and to commiserate his case, just as though they\nthemselves felt and suffered the same; so that they may be impelled, by a\nsense of mercy and humanity, to afford assistance to him as readily as if\nit were to themselves. He who comes to the assistance of his brethren\nunder the influence of such a disposition, not only will not contaminate\nhis services with arrogance or reproach, but will neither despise his\nbrother who is the object of his beneficence, as needing assistance, nor\ndomineer over him as under an obligation to him; no more, for instance,\nthan we insult a diseased member, for whose restoration the rest of the\nbody labours, or suppose it to be under particular obligations to the\nother members, because it has needed more assistance than it returned. For\nthe communication of services between the members of the body, is esteemed\nto be in no sense gratuitous, but rather a discharge of that which, being\ndue by the law of nature, it would be monstrous to refuse. And for this\nreason, he will not suppose himself to have discharged all his duty, who\nhas performed one kind of service; as it generally happens, that a rich\nman, after having bestowed some part of his property, leaves other burdens\nto be borne by other persons, and considers himself as exempted from all\nconcern about them. On the contrary, every man will reflect with himself,\nthat however great he may be, he is a debtor to his neighbour, and that no\nbounds should be fixed to the exercise of beneficence towards them, except\nwhen his ability fails, which, as far as it extends, ought to be limited\nby the rule of charity.\n\nVIII. Let us describe again, more at large, the principal branch of self\u2010\ndenial, which we have said relates to God; and indeed many observations\nhave already been made concerning it, which it would be needless to\nrepeat: it will be sufficient to show how it habituates us to equanimity\nand patience. First, therefore, in seeking the convenience or tranquillity\nof the present life, the Scripture calls us to this point; that resigning\nourselves and all that we have to the will of God, we should surrender to\nhim the affections of our heart, to be conquered and reduced to\nsubjection. To desire wealth and honours, to be ambitious of power, to\naccumulate riches, to amass all those vanities which appear conducive to\nmagnificence and pomp, our passion is furious, and our cupidity unbounded.\nOn the contrary, to poverty, obscurity, and meanness, we feel a wonderful\nfear and abhorrence, which stimulate us to avoid them by all possible\nmeans. Hence we may see, how restless the minds of all those persons are,\nwho regulate their lives according to their own reason; how many arts they\ntry, and with what exertions they fatigue themselves, in order, on the one\nhand, to obtain the objects of ambition or avarice, on the other, to avoid\npoverty and meanness. Pious men, therefore, that they may not be involved\nin such snares, must pursue the following course: First, let them neither\ndesire, nor hope, nor entertain a thought of prosperity, from any other\ncause than the Divine blessing; and on that let them securely and\nconfidently depend. For however the flesh may appear to itself to be\nabundantly sufficient, when it either attempts by its own industry, or\nstrenuous exertions, to attain honours and wealth, or is assisted by the\nfavour of man,\u2014yet it is certain, that all these things are nothing, and\nthat we shall obtain no advantage, either by ingenuity or by labour, but\nas far as the Lord shall prosper both. On the contrary, his benediction\nalone finds a way, even through all impediments, so as to bring all our\naffairs to a joyful and prosperous conclusion. And though we may, for the\nmost part, be able without it to obtain for ourselves some degree of\nopulence and glory, as we daily behold impious men accumulating great\nhonours and enormous wealth, yet, since those who are under the curse of\nGod enjoy not even the smallest particle of happiness, we shall acquire\nnothing without the Divine blessing, which will not eventually prove a\ncalamity to us. And that is by no means to be desired, the acquisition of\nwhich renders men more miserable.\n\nIX. Therefore, if we believe that all the cause of desirable prosperity\nconsists in the Divine benediction alone, without which miseries and\ncalamities of every kind await us, it follows also, that we should not\npassionately strive for wealth and honours, either relying on our own\ndiligence or acuteness of understanding, or depending on the favour of\nmen, or confiding in a vain imagination of chance; but that we should\nalways regard the Lord, to be conducted by his direction to whatsoever lot\nhe has provided for us. The consequence of this will be, in the first\nplace, that we shall not rush forward to seize on wealth or honours by\nunlawful actions, by deceitful and criminal arts, by rapacity and injury\nof our neighbours; but shall confine ourselves to the pursuit of those\ninterests, which will not seduce us from the path of innocence. For who\ncan expect the assistance of the Divine benediction, amidst fraud, rapine,\nand other iniquitous acts? For as that follows him only whose thoughts are\npure, and whose actions are upright, so it calls away all those by whom it\nis sought, from irregular thoughts and corrupt practices. In the next\nplace, we shall find a restraint laid upon us, to keep us from being\ninflamed with an inordinate desire of growing rich, and from ambitiously\naspiring after honours. For with what face can any man confide in the\nassistance of God, towards obtaining things which he desires in opposition\nto the Divine word? Far be it from God to follow with the aid of his\nblessing, what he curses with his mouth. Lastly, if our success be not\nequal to our wishes and hopes, yet we shall be restrained from impatience,\nand from execrating our condition, whatever it may be; because we shall\nknow, that this would be murmuring against God, at whose pleasure are\ndispensed riches and poverty, honour and contempt. In short, he who shall\nrepose himself, in the manner we have mentioned, on the Divine blessing,\nwill neither hunt after the objects violently coveted by men in general,\nby evil methods, from which he will expect no advantage; nor will he\nimpute any prosperous event to himself, and to his own diligence,\nindustry, or good fortune; but will acknowledge God to be the author of\nit. If, while the affairs of others are flourishing, he makes but a small\nprogress, or even moves in a retrograde direction, yet he will bear his\npoverty with more equanimity and moderation, than any profane man would\nfeel with a mediocrity of success, which would merely be inferior to his\nwishes; possessing, indeed, a consolation in which he may enjoy more\ntranquil satisfaction, than in the zenith of opulence or power; because he\nconsiders, that his affairs are ordered by the Lord in such a manner as is\nconducive to his salvation. This, we see, was the disposition of David,\nwho, while he follows God, surrenders himself to his government, and\ndeclares, that he is \u201cas a child that is weaned of his mother; neither do\nI exercise myself,\u201d says he, \u201cin great matters, or in things too high for\nme.\u201d(1839)\n\nX. Nor is this the only instance in which pious persons should feel such\ntranquillity and patience; the same state of mind ought to be extended to\nall the events to which the present life is exposed. Therefore no man has\nrightly renounced himself, but he who has wholly resigned himself to the\nLord, so as to leave all the parts of his life to be governed by his will.\nHe whose mind is thus composed, whatever may befall him, will neither\nthink himself miserable, nor invidiously complain against God on account\nof his lot. The great necessity of this disposition will appear, if we\nconsider the numerous accidents to which we are subject. Diseases of\nvarious kinds frequently attack us: at one time, the pestilence is raging;\nat another, we are cruelly harassed with the calamities of war; at another\ntime, frost or hail, devouring the hopes of the year, produces sterility,\nwhich brings us to penury; a wife, parents, children, or other relatives,\nare snatched away by death; our dwelling is consumed by a fire; these are\nthe events, on the occurrence of which, men curse this life, or their\nnatal day, execrate heaven and earth, reproach God, and, as they are\neloquent to blaspheme, accuse him of injustice and cruelty. But it behoves\na believer, even in these events, to contemplate the clemency and truly\npaternal goodness of God. Wherefore, if he sees his relatives removed, and\nhis house rendered a solitary place, he must not cease to bless the Lord,\nbut rather have recourse to this reflection: Yet the grace of the Lord,\nwhich inhabits my house, will not leave it desolate. Or if he sees his\ncrops bitten or destroyed by frost, or beaten down by hail, and famine\nthreatening him, yet he will not sink into despondency or displeasure\nagainst God, but will abide in this confidence\u2014We are under the guardian\ncare of God, we are \u201cthe sheep of his pasture;\u201d(1840) he therefore will\nsupply us with food even in seasons of the greatest barrenness. If he\nshall be afflicted with disease, even then he will not be so far\ndiscouraged by the bitterness of his pain, as to break out into\nimpatience, and to complain against God; but will rather strengthen his\npatience by a consideration of the justice and lenity of the Divine\ncorrection. Finally, whatever may happen, knowing it to be ordained by the\nLord, he will receive it with a placid and grateful heart, that he may not\nbe guilty of contumaciously resisting his authority, to whose power he has\nonce resigned himself and all that belongs to him. Far, therefore, from\nthe heart of a Christian man be that foolish and most wretched consolation\nof the heathen, who, to fortify their minds against adversity, imputed it\nto Fortune; with whom they esteemed it foolish to be displeased, because\nshe was thoughtless and rash, and blindly wounded without discrimination\nthe worthy and the unworthy. On the contrary, the rule of piety is, that\nGod alone is the arbiter and governor of all events, both prosperous and\nadverse, and that he does not proceed with inconsiderate impetuosity, but\ndispenses to us blessings and calamities with the most systematic justice.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII. Bearing The Cross, Which Is A Branch Of Self\u2010Denial.\n\n\nBut it becomes a pious mind to rise still higher, even to that to which\nChrist calls his disciples; that every one should \u201ctake up his\ncross.\u201d(1841) For all whom the Lord has chosen and honoured with admission\ninto the society of his saints, ought to prepare themselves for a life,\nhard, laborious, unquiet, and replete with numerous and various\ncalamities. It is the will of their heavenly Father to exercise them in\nthis manner, that he may have a certain proof of those that belong to him.\nHaving begun with Christ his first begotten Son, he pursues this method\ntowards all his children. For though Christ was above all others the\nbeloved Son, in whom the Father was always well pleased,(1842) yet we see\nhow little indulgence and tenderness he experienced; so that it may be\ntruly said, not only that he was perpetually burdened with a cross during\nhis residence on earth, but that his whole life was nothing but a kind of\nperpetual cross. The apostle assigns the reason, that it was necessary for\nhim to \u201clearn obedience by the things which he suffered.\u201d(1843) Why, then,\nshould we exempt ourselves from that condition, to which it behoved Christ\nour head to be subject; especially since his submission was on our\naccount, that he might exhibit to us an example of patience in his own\nperson? Wherefore the apostle teaches, that it is the destination of all\nthe children of God \u201cto be conformed to him.\u201d(1844) It is also a source of\nsignal consolation to us, in unpleasant and severe circumstances, which\nare esteemed adversities and calamities, that we partake of the sufferings\nof Christ; that as he from a labyrinth of all evils entered into the glory\nof heaven, so we are conducted forward through various tribulations to the\nsame glory;(1845) for Paul teaches us, that when we \u201cknow the fellowship\nof his sufferings,\u201d we also apprehend \u201cthe power of his resurrection;\u201d\nthat while we are conformed to his death, we are thus prepared to partake\nof his glorious resurrection.(1846) How much is this adapted to alleviate\nall the bitterness of the cross, that the more we are afflicted by\nadversities, our fellowship with Christ is so much the more certainly\nconfirmed! By this communion the sufferings themselves not only become\nblessings to us, but afford considerable assistance towards promoting our\nsalvation.\n\nII. Besides, our Lord was under no necessity of bearing the cross, except\nto testify and prove his obedience to his Father; but there are many\nreasons which render it necessary for us to live under a continual cross.\nFirst, as we are naturally too prone to attribute every thing to our\nflesh, unless we have, as it were, ocular demonstration of our imbecility,\nwe easily form an extravagant estimate of our strength, presuming that\nwhatever may happen, it will remain undaunted and invincible amidst all\ndifficulties. This inflates us with a foolish, vain, carnal confidence;\nrelying on which, we become contumacious and proud, in opposition to God\nhimself, just as though our own powers were sufficient for us without his\ngrace. This arrogance he cannot better repress, than by proving to us from\nexperience, not only our great imbecility, but also our extreme frailty.\nTherefore he afflicts us with ignominy, or poverty, or loss of relatives,\nor disease, or other calamities; to the bearing of which being in\nourselves unequal, we ere long sink under them. Thus being humbled, we\nlearn to invoke his strength, which alone causes us to stand erect under a\nload of afflictions. Moreover, the greatest saints, though sensible that\nthey stand by the grace of God, not by their own strength, are\nnevertheless more secure than they ought to be of their fortitude and\nconstancy, unless he leads them by the discipline of the cross into a\ndeeper knowledge of themselves. This presumption insinuated itself even\ninto David: \u201cIn my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved; Lord, by thy\nfavour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong. Thou didst hide thy\nface, and I was troubled.\u201d(1847) For he confesses that his senses were so\nstupefied and benumbed by prosperity, that disregarding the grace of God,\non which he ought to have depended, he relied on himself, so as to promise\nhimself a permanent standing. If this happened to so great a prophet, who\nof us should not be fearful and cautious? Though in prosperity, therefore,\nthey have flattered themselves with the notion of superior constancy and\npatience, yet when humbled by adversity, they learn that this was mere\nhypocrisy. Admonished by such evidences of their maladies, believers\nadvance in humility, and, divested of corrupt confidence in the flesh,\nbetake themselves to the grace of God; and when they have applied to it,\nthey experience the presence of the Divine strength, in which they find\nabundant protection.\n\nIII. This is what Paul teaches, that \u201ctribulation worketh patience, and\npatience experience.\u201d(1848) For the promise of God to believers, that he\nwill assist them in tribulations, they experience to be true, when they\npatiently stand supported by his power, which they certainly could not do\nby their own strength. Patience, therefore, affords a proof to the saints,\nthat God will really give the assistance he has promised in every time of\nneed. This also confirms their hope; for it would be too much ingratitude\nnot to rely on the truth of God for the future, which they have hitherto\nexperienced to be constant and certain. We see now what a series of\nbenefits we derive from the cross. For, subverting the opinion which we\nhave falsely preconceived of our own strength, and detecting our\nhypocrisy, with which we are enamoured, it expels pernicious and carnal\nconfidence; when we are thus humbled, it teaches us to rely upon God\nalone, which keeps us from sinking under afflictions. And victory is\nfollowed by hope; inasmuch as the Lord, by the performance of his\npromises, establishes his truth for the future. Though these were the only\nreasons that could be given, they are sufficient to show the necessity of\nthe discipline of the cross. For it is no small advantage to be divested\nof a blind self\u2010love, that we may be fully conscious of our imbecility; to\nbe affected with a sense of our imbecility, that we may learn to be\ndiffident of ourselves; to be diffident of ourselves, that we may transfer\nour confidence to God; to depend with unreserved confidence on God, that,\nrelying on his assistance, we may persevere unconquered to the end; to\nstand in his grace, that we may know his veracity in his promises; to\nexperience the certainty of his promises, that our hope may thereby be\nstrengthened.\n\nIV. The Lord has also another end in afflicting his children; to try their\npatience, and teach them obedience. Not, indeed, that they can perform any\nother obedience to him than that which he has given them; but he is\npleased in this manner, by clear evidences, to exhibit and testify the\ngraces which he has conferred on his saints, that they may not be\nconcealed in inactivity within them. Therefore, in giving an open\nmanifestation of the strength and constancy in suffering, with which he\nhas furnished his servants, he is said to try their patience. Hence these\nexpressions, that \u201cGod did tempt Abraham,\u201d and prove his piety, from the\ncircumstance of his not refusing to sacrifice his own and only son.(1849)\nWherefore Peter states, that our faith is tried by tribulations, just as\ngold is tried by fire in a furnace.(1850) Now, who can say that it is not\nnecessary for this most excellent gift of patience, which a believer has\nreceived from his God, to be brought forward into use, that it may be\nascertained and manifested? For otherwise men will never esteem it as it\ndeserves. But if God himself acts justly, when, to prevent the virtues\nwhich he has conferred on believers from being concealed in obscurity and\nremaining useless and perishing, he furnishes an occasion for exciting\nthem,\u2014there is the best of reasons for the afflictions of the saints,\nwithout which they would have no patience. By the cross they are also, I\nsay, instructed to obedience; because they are thus taught to live, not\naccording to their own inclination, but according to the will of God. If\nevery thing succeeded with them according to their wishes, they would not\nknow what it is to follow God. But Seneca mentions that this was an\nancient proverb, when they would exhort any one to bear adversity with\npatience, \u201cFollow God.\u201d This implied that man submitted to the yoke of\nGod, only when he resigned himself to his corrections. Now, if it is most\nreasonable that we should prove ourselves in all things obedient to our\nheavenly Father, we certainly ought not to deny him the use of every\nmethod to accustom us to practise this obedience.\n\nV. Yet we do not perceive how necessary this obedience is to us, unless we\nat the same time reflect on the great wantonness of our flesh to shake off\nthe Divine yoke, as soon as we have been treated with a little tenderness\nand indulgence. The case is exactly the same as with refractory horses,\nwhich, after having been pampered for some days in idleness, grow fierce\nand untamable, and regard not the rider, to whose management they\npreviously submitted. And we are perpetual examples of what God complains\nof in the people of Israel; when we are \u201cwaxen fat,\u201d and are \u201ccovered with\nfatness,\u201d(1851) we kick against him who has cherished and supported us.\nThe beneficence of God ought to have allured us to the consideration and\nlove of his goodness; but since such is our ingratitude, that we are\nrather constantly corrupted by his indulgence, it is highly necessary for\nus to be restrained by some discipline from breaking out into such\npetulance. Therefore, that we may not be made haughty by an excessive\nabundance of wealth, that we may not become proud on being distinguished\nwith honours, that we may not be rendered insolent by being inflated with\nother advantages, mental, corporeal, or external, the Lord himself, as he\nforesees will be expedient, by the remedy of the cross, opposes,\nrestrains, and subdues the haughtiness of our flesh; and that by various\nmethods, adapted to promote the benefit of each individual. For we are not\nall equally afflicted with the same diseases, or all in need of an equally\nsevere method of cure. Hence we see different persons exercised with\ndifferent kinds of crosses. But whilst the heavenly Physician, consulting\nthe health of all his patients, practises a milder treatment towards some,\nand cures others with rougher remedies, yet he leaves no one completely\nexempted, because he knows we are all diseased, without the exception of a\nsingle individual.\n\nVI. Moreover it is necessary that our most merciful Father should not only\nprevent our infirmity for the future, but also frequently correct our past\noffences, to preserve us in a course of legitimate obedience to himself.\nWherefore in every affliction we ought immediately to recollect the course\nof our past life. In reviewing it, we shall certainly find that we have\ncommitted what was deserving of such chastisement. Nevertheless the\nexhortation to patience must not be principally founded on a consciousness\nof sin. For the Scripture furnishes a far better consideration, when it\ninforms us, that in adversity \u201cwe are chastened of the Lord, that we\nshould not be condemned with the world.\u201d(1852) Therefore, even in the\nbitterness of tribulations, it becomes us to acknowledge the clemency and\nbenignity of our Father towards us; since even then he ceases not to\npromote our salvation. For he afflicts, not to ruin or destroy us, but\nrather to deliver us from the condemnation of the world. This idea will\nlead us to what the Scripture inculcates in another place: \u201cMy son,\ndespise not the chastening of the Lord, neither be weary of his\ncorrection; for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even as a father the\nson in whom he delighteth.\u201d(1853) When we recognize the rod of a father,\nis it not our duty rather to show ourselves obedient and docile children,\nthan contumaciously to imitate desperate men, who have been hardened in\ntheir transgressions? God loses us, unless he recalls us after our\ndefections from him; so that the apostle correctly remarks, \u201cIf ye be\nwithout chastisement, then are ye bastards, and not sons.\u201d(1854) We are\nextremely perverse, therefore, if we cannot bear with him, while he\ndeclares his benevolence towards us, and his great concern for our\nsalvation. The Scripture points out this difference between believers and\nunbelievers; the latter, as the slaves of an inveterate and incurable\niniquity, are only rendered more wicked and obstinate by correction; the\nformer, like ingenuous children, are led to a salutary repentance. You\nhave to choose now in which number you would prefer to stand. But having\ntreated of this subject elsewhere, I shall conclude, contenting myself\nwith having thus briefly touched on it here.\n\nVII. But it is a source of peculiar consolation when we suffer persecution\n\u201cfor righteousness\u2019 sake.\u201d(1855) For we ought then to reflect how greatly\nwe are honoured by God, when he thus distinguishes us with the peculiar\ncharacteristic of his service. I call it persecution for righteousness\u2019\nsake, not only when we suffer in defence of the gospel, but also when we\nare molested in the vindication of any just cause. Whether, therefore, in\nasserting the truth of God, in opposition to the falsehoods of Satan, or\nin undertaking the protection of good and innocent men against the\ninjuries of the wicked, it be necessary for us to incur the resentment and\nhatred of the world, by which our lives, our fortunes, or our reputation,\nmay be endangered,\u2014let it not be grievous or irksome to us thus far to\nemploy ourselves in the service of God; nor let us imagine ourselves to be\nmiserable in those respects in which he has with his own mouth pronounced\nus blessed. It is true, that poverty, considered in itself, is misery; and\nthe same may be said of exile, contempt, imprisonment, ignominy; finally,\ndeath is of all calamities the last and worst. But with the favour of our\nGod, they are all conducive to our happiness. Let us therefore be content\nwith the testimony of Christ, rather than with the false opinion of the\nflesh. Thus we shall rejoice, like the apostles, whenever he shall \u201ccount\nus worthy to suffer shame for his name.\u201d(1856) For if, being innocent and\nconscious of our own integrity, we are stripped of our property by the\nvillany of the wicked, we are reduced to poverty indeed among men, but we\nthereby obtain an increase of true riches with God in heaven; if we are\nbanished from our country, we are more intimately received into the family\nof God; if we meet with vexation and contempt, we are so much the more\nfirmly rooted in Christ; if we are stigmatized with reproach and ignominy,\nwe are so much the more exalted in the kingdom of God; if we are\nmassacred, it opens an entrance for us into a life of blessedness. We\nought to be ashamed of setting a lower estimation on things on which the\nLord has attached such a great value, than on the shadowy and evanescent\npleasures of the present life.\n\nVIII. Since the Scripture, therefore, by these and similar instructions,\naffords abundant consolation under all the ignominy and calamity which we\nsustain in the defence of righteousness, we are chargeable with extreme\ningratitude if we do not receive them from the hand of the Lord with\ncheerful resignation; especially since this is the species of affliction,\nor the cross, most peculiar to believers, by which Christ will be\nglorified in us, according to the declaration of Peter.(1857) And\ncontumelious treatment being to ingenuous minds more intolerable than a\nhundred deaths, Paul expressly apprizes us, that not only persecutions,\nbut reproaches await us, \u201cbecause we trust in the living God.\u201d(1858) As in\nanother place he directs us by his example to go through \u201cevil report and\ngood report.\u201d(1859) Nor are we required to exercise such a cheerfulness as\nto banish all sense of bitterness and sorrow; the saints could discover no\npatience under the cross, unless they were tormented with sorrow and\nharassed with grief. If there were no hardship in poverty, no agony in\ndiseases, no distress in ignominy, no horror in death,\u2014what fortitude or\nmoderation would be displayed in regarding them with absolute\nindifference? But since each of these, by its own essential bitterness,\nnaturally preys on all our hearts, herein the fortitude of a believer is\nmanifested, if, when he experiences such bitterness, how grievously soever\nhe may be distressed by it, yet by valiantly resisting, he at length\novercomes it; his patience displays itself, if, when he is sharply\nprovoked, he is nevertheless restrained by the fear of God from any\neruptions of intemperance: his cheerfulness is conspicuous, if, when he is\nwounded by sadness and sorrow, he is satisfied with the spiritual\nconsolation of God.\n\nIX. This conflict, which believers sustain against the natural emotions of\nsorrow, while they cultivate patience and moderation, Paul has beautifully\ndescribed in the following words: \u201cWe are troubled on every side, yet not\ndistressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not\nforsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.\u201d(1860) You see that patiently to\nbear the cross does not consist in an absolute stupefaction and privation\nof all sense of sorrow, according to the foolish description given by the\nancient Stoics of a magnanimous man, as one who, divested of the feelings\nof human nature, is alike unaffected by adverse and prosperous events, by\nsorrowful and joyful ones. And what advantage have they derived from this\nsublime wisdom? They have depicted an image of patience, such as never has\nbeen found, such as never can exist among men; but in their ardour for a\npatience too perfect and precise, they have banished its influence from\nhuman life. At present also among Christians there are modern Stoics, who\nesteem it sinful not only to groan and weep, but even to discover sadness\nand solicitude. These paradoxes generally proceed from idle men, who,\nemploying themselves more in speculation than in action, can produce\nnothing but such paradoxical notions. But we have nothing to do with that\niron\u2010hearted philosophy, which our Master and Lord has condemned not only\nin words, but even by his own example. For he mourned and wept both for\nhis own calamities and for those of others. Nor did he teach his disciples\na different conduct. \u201cThe world,\u201d says he, \u201cshall rejoice, but ye shall\nweep and lament.\u201d(1861) And that no man might pervert it into a crime, he\nhas formally pronounced a blessing on them that mourn;(1862) and no\nwonder. For if all tears be reprobated, what judgment shall we form\nconcerning the Lord himself, from whose body distilled tears of\nblood?(1863) If every terror be stigmatized with the charge of unbelief,\nwhat character shall we attribute to that horror and consternation with\nwhich we read that he was so violently depressed? If all sorrow be\ndispleasing, how can we be pleased with his confessing that his \u201csoul\u201d was\n\u201csorrowful even unto death?\u201d\n\nX. I have thought proper to mention these things, in order to preserve\npious minds from despair; that they may not hastily renounce the study of\npatience, because they cannot divest themselves of the natural affection\nof sorrow. This must necessarily be the case with those who degrade\npatience into insensibility, and a man of fortitude and constancy into a\nsenseless block. For the Scripture applauds the saints for their patience,\nwhen they are afflicted with severe calamities, but not broken and\novercome by them; when they are bitterly distressed, but are filled at the\nsame time with spiritual joy; when they are oppressed with anxiety, but\nare revived and exhilarated with Divine consolation. At the same time\nthere is that opposition in their hearts, that the feelings of nature\navoid and dread those things which they experience to be inimical to it;\nbut the affection of piety struggles even through these difficulties to\nobey the Divine will. This opposition the Lord expressed, when he thus\naddressed Peter: \u201cWhen thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and\nwalkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, another shall\ngird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.\u201d(1864) It is not\nprobable that Peter, when he was called to glorify God by his death, was\ndrawn to it with reluctance and resistance; in this case his martyrdom\nwould be entitled to little applause. But however he might submit with the\ngreatest alacrity of heart to the Divine appointment, yet, not having\ndivested himself of human nature, he was distracted by two contrary\ninclinations. For when he contemplated the bloody death he was about to\nundergo, stricken with a dread of it, he would gladly have escaped. On the\ncontrary, when he considered that he was called to it by the Divine will,\nsuppressing all fear, he unreluctantly and even cheerfully submitted to\nit. It must be our study, therefore, if we would be the disciples of\nChrist, that our minds may be imbued with so great a reverence for God,\nand such an unreserved obedience to him, as may overcome all contrary\naffections, and make them submit to his appointments. Thus, whatever kind\nof affliction we endure, even in the greatest distresses of the mind, we\nshall constantly retain our patience. For adversity itself will have its\nstings, with which we shall be wounded. Thus, when afflicted with disease,\nwe shall groan and be disquieted, and pray for the restoration of health;\nthus, when oppressed with poverty, we shall feel the stings of solicitude\nand sorrow; thus we shall be affected with the grief of ignominy,\ncontempt, and injury; thus we shall shed the tears due to nature at the\nfunerals of our friends; but we shall always recur to this conclusion,\nThis affliction is appointed by the Lord, therefore let us submit to his\nwill. Even in the agonies of grief, amid groans and tears, there is a\nnecessity for the intervention of this reflection, in order to incline the\nheart cheerfully to bear those things by which it is so affected.\n\nXI. But as we have deduced the principal reason for bearing the cross from\na consideration of the Divine will, we must briefly point out the\ndifference between philosophical and Christian patience. For very few of\nthe philosophers have risen to such an eminence of reason, as to perceive\nthat we are exercised with afflictions by the Divine hand, and to conclude\nthat God ought to be obeyed in these occurrences; and even those who have\ngone to this length, adduce no other reason, than because it is necessary.\nWhat is this but saying, that we must submit to God, because it were in\nvain to contend against him? For if we obey God only from necessity, if it\nwere possible to escape from him, our obedience would cease. But the\nScripture enjoins us to consider the Divine will in a very different point\nof view; first, as consistent with justice and equity; secondly, as\ndirected to the accomplishment of our salvation. Christian exhortations to\npatience, then, are such as these: Whether we are afflicted with poverty,\nor exile, or imprisonment, or reproach, or disease, or loss of relatives,\nor any other similar calamity, we must reflect that none of these things\nhappen without the appointment and providence of God; and, moreover, that\nhe does nothing but with the most systematic justice. Do not our\ninnumerable and daily transgressions deserve more severe and grievous\nchastisements than those which his clemency inflicts on us? Is it not\nhighly reasonable that our flesh should be subdued, and as it were\naccustomed to the yoke, lest it should break out, according to its\npropensities, into lawless excesses? Are not the righteousness and truth\nof God worthy of our labours on their account? But if the equity of God\nevidently appears in our afflictions, we cannot without iniquity either\nmurmur or resist. We no longer hear that frigid maxim of the philosophers,\nWe must submit to necessity; but a lesson lively and full of efficacy, We\nmust obey, because it is unlawful to resist: we must patiently suffer,\nbecause impatience is a rebellious opposition to the justice of God.\nBecause nothing is really amiable to us but what we know to be conducive\nto our benefit and salvation, our most merciful Father affords us\nconsolation also in this respect, by declaring, that even in afflicting us\nwith the cross, he promotes our salvation. But if it be evident that\ntribulations are salutary for us, why should we not endure them with\ngrateful and placid hearts? In patiently bearing them, therefore, we do\nnot submit to necessity, but acquiesce in our own benefit. The effect of\nthese considerations is, that in proportion as our minds are oppressed\nunder the cross with the natural sense of affliction, so greatly are they\ndilated with spiritual joy. This is attended also by thanksgiving, which\ncannot be without joy. But if praise and thanksgiving to the Lord can only\nproceed from a cheerful and joyful heart,\u2014and there is nothing which ought\nto repress these emotions within us,\u2014this shows how necessary it is that\nthe bitterness of the cross should be tempered with spiritual joy.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX. Meditation On The Future Life.\n\n\nWith whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always\nkeep this end in view\u2014to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present\nlife, that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to\ncome. For the Lord, well knowing our strong natural inclination to a\nbrutish love of the world, adopts a most excellent method to reclaim us\nand rouse us from our insensibility, that we may not be too tenaciously\nattached to that foolish affection. There is not one of us who is not\ndesirous of appearing, through the whole course of his life, to aspire and\nstrive after celestial immortality. For we are ashamed of excelling in no\nrespect the brutal herds, whose condition would not be at all inferior to\nours, unless there remained to us a hope of eternity after death. But if\nyou examine the designs, pursuits, and actions of every individual, you\nwill find nothing in them but what is terrestrial. Hence that stupidity,\nthat the mental eyes, dazzled with the vain splendour of riches, power,\nand honours, cannot see to any considerable distance. The heart also,\noccupied and oppressed with avarice, ambition, and other inordinate\ndesires, cannot rise to any eminence. In a word, the whole soul,\nfascinated by carnal allurements, seeks its felicity on earth. To oppose\nthis evil, the Lord, by continual lessons of miseries, teaches his\nchildren the vanity of the present life. That they may not promise\nthemselves profound and secure peace in it, therefore he permits them to\nbe frequently disquieted and infested with wars or tumults, with robberies\nor other injuries. That they may not aspire with too much avidity after\ntransient and uncertain riches, or depend on those which they\npossess,\u2014sometimes by exile, sometimes by the sterility of the land,\nsometimes by a conflagration, sometimes by other means, he reduces them to\nindigence, or at least confines them within the limits of mediocrity. That\nthey may not be too complacently delighted with conjugal blessings, he\neither causes them to be distressed with the wickedness of their wives, or\nhumbles them with a wicked offspring, or afflicts them with want or loss\nof children. But if in all these things he is more indulgent to them, yet\nthat they may not be inflated with vain glory, or improper confidence, he\nshows them by diseases and dangers the unstable and transitory nature of\nall mortal blessings. We therefore truly derive advantage from the\ndiscipline of the cross, only when we learn that this life, considered in\nitself, is unquiet, turbulent, miserable in numberless instances, and in\nno respect altogether happy; and that all its reputed blessings are\nuncertain, transient, vain, and adulterated with a mixture of many evils;\nand in consequence of this at once conclude, that nothing can be sought or\nexpected on earth but conflict, and that when we think of a crown we must\nraise our eyes towards heaven. For it must be admitted, that the mind is\nnever seriously excited to desire and meditate on the future life, without\nhaving previously imbibed a contempt of the present.\n\nII. There is no medium between these two extremes; either the earth must\nbecome vile in our estimation, or it must retain our immoderate love.\nWherefore, if we have any concern about eternity, we must use our most\ndiligent efforts to extricate ourselves from these fetters. Now, since the\npresent life has numerous blandishments to attract us, and much pleasure,\nbeauty, and sweetness to delight us,\u2014it is very necessary to our highest\ninterests, that we should be frequently called off, that we may not be\nfascinated with such allurements. For what would be the consequence, if we\nwere perpetually happy in the enjoyment of the blessings of this life;\nsince we cannot, even by the incessant stimulus of calamity after\ncalamity, be sufficiently aroused to a consideration of its misery? That\nhuman life is like a vapour or a shadow, is not only known to the learned,\nbut even the vulgar have no proverb more common; and perceiving it to be a\nthing the knowledge of which would be eminently useful, they have\nrepresented it in many remarkable sentences. But there is scarcely any\nthing which we more carelessly consider, or sooner forget; for we\nundertake every thing as though we were erecting for ourselves an\nimmortality on earth. If a funeral pass by, or we walk among the tombs,\nbecause the image of death is then presented to our eyes, we philosophize,\nI confess, in an admirable manner concerning the vanity of the present\nlife; although even that is not always the case, for frequently we are\nquite unaffected with all these things. But when this effect is produced,\nour philosophy is momentary, vanishing as soon as we withdraw, and leaving\nnot even the smallest vestige behind it; in short, it passes away, and is\nforgotten just like the plaudits of a theatre at any entertaining\nexhibition. And forgetting not only death, but mortality itself, as though\nno rumour concerning it had ever reached us, we relapse into a supine\nsecurity of immortality on earth. If any one, in the mean time, reminds us\nof the unwelcome proverb, that man is a creature of a day, we acknowledge\nthe truth of it indeed, but with such inattention that the idea of\nperpetually living here still remains fixed in our minds. Who, then, can\ndeny, that it is highly useful to us all, I do not say to be admonished by\nwords, but by every possible evidence to be convinced, of the miserable\ncondition of the present life; since even after we are convinced of it, we\nscarcely cease to be besotted with a perverse and foolish admiration of\nit, as though it contained the greatest attainable blessings? But if it be\nnecessary for God to instruct us, it is, on the other hand, our duty to\nlisten to him when he calls, and rebukes our sluggishness; in order that,\ndespising the world, we may apply ourselves with our whole heart to\nmeditate on the life which is to come.\n\nIII. But believers should accustom themselves to such a contempt of the\npresent life, as may not generate either hatred of life, or ingratitude\ntowards God. For this life, though it is replete with innumerable\nmiseries, is yet deservedly reckoned among the Divine blessings which must\nnot be despised. Wherefore, if we discover nothing of the Divine\nbeneficence in it, we are already guilty of no small ingratitude towards\nGod himself. But to believers especially it should be a testimony of the\nDivine benevolence, since the whole of it is destined to the advancement\nof their salvation. For before he openly discovers to us the inheritance\nof eternal glory, he intends to reveal himself as our Father in inferior\ninstances; and those are the benefits which he daily confers on us. Since\nthis life, then, is subservient to a knowledge of the Divine goodness,\nshall we fastidiously scorn it, as though it contained no particle of\ngoodness in it? We must therefore have this sense and affection, to class\nit among the bounties of the Divine benignity which are not to be\nrejected. For if Scripture testimonies were wanting, which are very\nnumerous and clear, even nature itself exhorts us to give thanks to the\nLord for having introduced us to the light of life, for granting us the\nuse of it, and giving us all the helps necessary to its preservation. And\nit is a far superior reason for gratitude, if we consider that here we are\nin some measure prepared for the glory of the heavenly kingdom. For the\nLord has ordained, that they who are to be hereafter crowned in heaven,\nmust first engage in conflicts on earth, that they may not triumph without\nhaving surmounted the difficulties of warfare and obtained the victory.\nAnother reason is, that here we begin in various blessings to taste the\nsweetness of the Divine benignity, that our hope and desire may be excited\nafter the full revelation of it. When we have come to this conclusion,\nthat our life in this world is a gift of the Divine clemency, which, as we\nowe to him, we ought to remember with gratitude, it will then be time for\nus to descend to a consideration of its most miserable condition, that we\nmay be delivered from excessive love of it, to which, as has been\nobserved, we are naturally inclined.\n\nIV. Now, whatever is abstracted from the corrupt love of this life should\nbe added to the desire of a better. I grant, indeed, the correctness of\ntheir opinion, who considered it as the greatest blessing not to be born,\nand as the next, to die immediately. For, being heathens, destitute of the\nknowledge of God and of true religion, what could they see in it but\nunhappiness and misery? Nor was there any thing irrational in the conduct\nof those who mourned and wept at the births of their relations, and\nsolemnly rejoiced at their funerals. But they practised this without any\nadvantage; for, destitute of the true doctrine of faith, they did not\nperceive how that can conduce to the benefit of the pious, which in itself\nis neither blessed nor desirable; and so their views terminated in\ndespair. It should be the object of believers, therefore, in judging of\nthis mortal life, that understanding it to be of itself nothing but\nmisery, they may apply themselves wholly, with increasing cheerfulness and\nreadiness, to meditate on the future and eternal life. When we come to\nthis comparison, then indeed the former may be not only securely\nneglected, but, in competition with the latter, altogether despised and\nabhorred. For if heaven is our country, what is the earth but a place of\nexile? If the departure out of the world is an entrance into life, what is\nthe world but a sepulchre? What is a continuance in it but an absorption\nin death? If deliverance from the body is an introduction into complete\nliberty, what is the body but a prison? If to enjoy the presence of God is\nthe summit of felicity, is it not misery to be destitute of it? But till\nwe escape out of the world, \u201cwe are absent from the Lord.\u201d(1865)\nTherefore, if the terrestrial life be compared with the celestial, it\nshould undoubtedly be despised and accounted of no value. It certainly is\nnever to be hated, except in as much as it keeps us obnoxious to sin;\nalthough even that hatred is not properly to be applied to life itself. It\nbecomes us, however, to be so affected with weariness or hatred of it, as\nto desire its end, but to be also prepared to remain in it during the\nDivine pleasure; that is to say, our weariness should be remote from all\nmurmuring and impatience. For it is a post at which the Lord has placed\nus, to be retained by us till he call us away. Paul, indeed, bewails his\nlot, that he is kept in bondage by the fetters of the body longer than he\nwould wish, and sighs with an ardent desire of deliverance;(1866)\nnevertheless, obedient to the Divine authority, he professes himself\nprepared for both; for he acknowledges himself under an obligation to God\nto glorify his name either by life or by death;(1867) but that it belongs\nto the Lord to determine what will conduce most to his glory. Therefore,\nif it becomes us \u201cto live and to die to the Lord,\u201d(1868) let us leave the\nlimits of our life and death to his decision; yet in such a manner, as\nardently to desire and continually to meditate on the latter, but to\ndespise the former in comparison with future immortality, and on account\nof the servitude of sin, to wish to forsake it whenever it shall please\nthe Lord.\n\nV. But it is monstrous, that instead of this desire of death, multitudes\nwho boast themselves to be Christians, are filled with such a dread of it,\nthat they tremble whenever it is mentioned, as if it were the greatest\ncalamity that could befall them. It is no wonder, indeed, if our natural\nfeelings should be alarmed at hearing of our dissolution. But it is\nintolerable that there should not be in a Christian breast sufficient\nlight of piety to overcome and suppress all that fear with superior\nconsolation. For if we consider, that this unstable, depraved,\ncorruptible, frail, withering, and rotten tabernacle of our body is\ndissolved, in order that it may hereafter be restored to a durable,\nperfect, incorruptible, and heavenly glory,\u2014will not faith constrain us\nardently to desire what nature dreads? If we consider, that by death we\nare recalled from exile to inhabit our own country, and that a heavenly\none, shall we derive thence no consolation? But it will be said, There is\nnothing that does not desire to be permanent. I admit it; and contend that\nwe ought therefore to direct our views to a future immortality, where we\nmay obtain a fixed condition, which is nowhere to be found on earth. For\nPaul excellently teaches believers to go with alacrity to death, \u201cnot for\nthat they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.\u201d(1869) Shall brute\nanimals, and even inanimate creatures, down to stocks and stones,\nconscious of their present vanity, be looking forward to the resurrection\nat the last day, that they may be delivered from vanity, together with the\nchildren of God; and shall we, endued with the light of understanding,\nand, what is superior to the natural understanding, illuminated with the\nSpirit of God, when the question respects our own existence, not raise our\nminds above the corruption of this world? But it is not necessary to my\npresent design, nor suitable in this place, to argue against such extreme\nperverseness. And I have already declared in the beginning, that I would\nnot undertake a diffuse discussion of commonplace topics. I would persuade\nsuch timid minds to read Cyprian\u2019s treatise on Mortality, did they not\ndeserve rather to be referred to the philosophers, that they may begin to\nblush, when they see the contempt of death discovered by them. But this we\nmay positively conclude, that no man has made any good proficiency in the\nschool of Christ, but he who joyfully expects both the day of death and\nthat of the final resurrection. For Paul describes all believers by this\ncharacter,(1870) and the Scripture often recalls our attention to it, when\nit intends to furnish us with a reason for true joy. \u201cLook up,\u201d saith the\nLord, \u201cand lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.\u201d(1871) Is\nit reasonable, that what he designed so powerfully to excite us to\nexultation and alacrity, should produce nothing but sorrow and\nconsternation? If this be the case, why do we still glory in him as our\nMaster? Let us therefore acquire a sounder judgment; and notwithstanding\nthe opposition of the blind and stupid cupidity of our flesh, let us not\nhesitate ardently to desire the advent of the Lord, as of all events the\nmost auspicious. For he shall come to us as a Redeemer, to deliver us from\nthis bottomless gulf of all evils and miseries, and introduce us into that\nblessed inheritance of his life and glory.\n\nVI. It is certainly true, that the whole family of believers, as long as\nthey dwell on the earth, must be \u201caccounted as sheep for the\nslaughter,\u201d(1872) that they may be conformed to Christ their Head. Their\nstate, therefore, would be extremely deplorable, if they did not elevate\ntheir thoughts towards heaven, rise above all sublunary things, and look\nbeyond present appearances.(1873) On the contrary, when they have once\nraised their heads above this world, although they see the impious\nflourishing in riches and honours, and enjoying the most profound\ntranquillity; though they see them boasting of their splendour and luxury,\nand behold them abounding in every delight; though they may also be\nharassed by their wickedness, insulted by their pride, defrauded by their\navarice, and may receive from them any other lawless provocations,\u2014yet\nthey will find no difficulty in supporting themselves even under such\ncalamities as these. For they will keep in view that day when the Lord\nwill receive his faithful servants into his peaceful kingdom; will wipe\nevery tear from their eyes,(1874) invest them with robes of joy, adorn\nthem with crowns of glory, entertain them with his ineffable delights,\nexalt them to fellowship with his majesty, and, in a word, honour them\nwith a participation of his happiness. But the impious, who have been\ngreat in this world, he will precipitate down to the lowest ignominy; he\nwill change their delights into torments, and their laughter and mirth\ninto weeping and gnashing of teeth; he will disturb their tranquillity\nwith dreadful agonies of conscience, and will punish their delicacy with\ninextinguishable fire, and even put them in subjection to the pious, whose\npatience they have abused. For, according to Paul, \u201cit is a righteous\nthing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble\u201d the saints,\n\u201cand to\u201d them \u201cwho are troubled, rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be\nrevealed from heaven.\u201d(1875) This is our only consolation; and deprived of\nthis, we must of necessity either sink into despondency of mind, or solace\nourselves to our own destruction with the vain pleasures of the world. For\neven the Psalmist confesses that he staggered,(1876) when he was too much\nengaged in contemplating the present prosperity of the impious; and that\nhe could no otherwise establish himself, till he entered the sanctuary of\nGod, and directed his views to the last end of the godly and of the\nwicked. To conclude in one word, the cross of Christ triumphs, in the\nhearts of believers, over the devil and the flesh, over sin and impious\nmen, only when their eyes are directed to the power of the resurrection.\n\n\n\n\nChapter X. The Right Use Of The Present Life And Its Supports.\n\n\nBy such principles, the Scripture also fully instructs us in the right use\nof terrestrial blessings\u2014a thing that ought not to be neglected in a plan\nfor the regulation of life. For if we must live, we must also use the\nnecessary supports of life; nor can we avoid even those things which\nappear to subserve our pleasures rather than our necessities. It behooves\nus, therefore, to observe moderation, that we may use them with a pure\nconscience, whether for necessity or for pleasure. This the Lord\nprescribes in his word, when he teaches us, that to his servants the\npresent life is like a pilgrimage, in which they are travelling towards\nthe celestial kingdom. If we are only to pass through the earth, we ought\nundoubtedly to make such a use of its blessings as will rather assist than\nretard us in our journey. It is not without reason, therefore, that Paul\nadvises us to use this world as though we used it not, and to buy with the\nsame disposition with which we sell.(1877) But as this is a difficult\nsubject, and there is danger of falling into one of two opposite errors,\nlet us endeavour to proceed on safe ground, that we may avoid both\nextremes. For there have been some, in other respects good and holy men,\nwho, seeing that intemperance and luxury, unless restrained with more than\nordinary severity, would perpetually indulge the most extravagant\nexcesses, and desiring to correct such a pernicious evil, have adopted the\nonly method which occurred to them, by permitting men to use corporeal\nblessings no further than their necessity should absolutely require. This\nadvice was well intended, but they were far too austere. For they\ncommitted the very dangerous error of imposing on the conscience stricter\nrules than those which are prescribed to it by the word of the Lord. By\nrestriction within the demands of necessity, they meant an abstinence from\nevery thing from which it is possible to abstain; so that, according to\nthem, it would scarcely be lawful to eat or drink any thing but bread and\nwater. Others have discovered still greater austerity, like Crates the\nTheban, who is said to have thrown his wealth into the sea, from an\napprehension that, unless it were destroyed, he should himself be\ndestroyed by it. On the contrary, many in the present day, who seek a\npretext to excuse intemperance in the use of external things, and at the\nsame time desire to indulge the licentiousness of the flesh, assume as\ngranted, what I by no means concede to them, that this liberty is not to\nbe restricted by any limitation; but that it ought to be left to the\nconscience of every individual to use as much as he thinks lawful for\nhimself. I grant, indeed, that it is neither right nor possible to bind\nthe conscience with the fixed and precise rules of law in this case; but\nsince the Scripture delivers general rules for the lawful use of earthly\nthings, our practice ought certainly to be regulated by them.\n\nII. It must be laid down as a principle, that the use of the gifts of God\nis not erroneous, when it is directed to the same end for which the\nCreator himself has created and appointed them for us; since he has\ncreated them for our benefit, not for our injury. Wherefore, no one will\nobserve a more proper rule, than he who shall diligently regard this end.\nNow, if we consider for what end he has created the various kinds of\naliment, we shall find that he intended to provide not only for our\nnecessity, but likewise for our pleasure and delight. So in clothing, he\nhas had in view not mere necessity, but propriety and decency. In herbs,\ntrees, and fruits, beside their various uses, his design has been to\ngratify us by graceful forms and pleasant odours. For if this were not\ntrue, the Psalmist would not recount among the Divine blessings, \u201cwine\nthat maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to\nshine;\u201d(1878) nor would the Scriptures universally declare, in\ncommendation of his goodness, that he has given all these things to men.\nAnd even the natural properties of things sufficiently indicate for what\nend, and to what extent, it is lawful to use them. But shall the Lord have\nendued flowers with such beauty, to present itself to our eyes, with such\nsweetness of smell, to impress our sense of smelling; and shall it be\nunlawful for our eyes to be affected with the beautiful sight, or our\nolfactory nerves with the agreeable odour? What! has he not made such a\ndistinction of colours as to render some more agreeable than others? Has\nhe not given to gold and silver, to ivory and marble, a beauty which makes\nthem more precious than other metals or stones? In a word, has he not made\nmany things worthy of our estimation, independently of any necessary use?\n\nIII. Let us discard, therefore, that inhuman philosophy which, allowing no\nuse of the creatures but what is absolutely necessary, not only\nmalignantly deprives us of the lawful enjoyment of the Divine beneficence,\nbut which cannot be embraced till it has despoiled man of all his senses,\nand reduced him to a senseless block. But, on the other hand, we must,\nwith equal diligence, oppose the licentiousness of the flesh; which,\nunless it be rigidly restrained, transgresses every bound. And, as I have\nobserved, it has its advocates, who, under the pretext of liberty, allow\nit every thing. In the first place, it will be one check to it, if it be\nconcluded, that all things are made for us, in order that we may know and\nacknowledge their Author, and celebrate his goodness towards us by giving\nhim thanks. What will become of thanksgiving, if you overcharge yourself\nwith dainties or wine, so as to be stupefied or rendered unfit for the\nduties of piety and the business of your station? Where is any\nacknowledgment of God, if your body, in consequence of excessive\nabundance, being inflamed with the vilest passions, infects the mind with\nits impurity, so that you cannot discern what is right or virtuous? Where\nis gratitude towards God for clothing, if, on account of our sumptuous\napparel, we admire ourselves and despise others? if with the elegance and\nbeauty of it, we prepare ourselves for unchastity? Where is our\nacknowledgment of God, if our minds be fixed on the splendour of our\ngarments? For many so entirely devote all their senses to the pursuit of\npleasure, that the mind is, as it were, buried in it; many are so\ndelighted with marble, gold, and pictures, that they become like statues,\nare, as it were, metamorphosed into metal, and resemble painted images.\nThe flavour of meats, or the sweetness of odours, so stupefies some, that\nthey have no relish for any thing spiritual. The same may be observed in\nother cases. Wherefore it is evident, that this principle lays some\nrestraint on the license of abusing the Divine bounties, and confirms the\nrule given us by Paul, that we \u201cmake not provision for the flesh, to\nfulfil the lusts thereof;\u201d(1879) which, if they are allowed too much\nlatitude, will transgress all the bounds of temperance and moderation.\n\nIV. But there is no way more certain or concise, than what we derive from\na contempt of the present life, and meditation on a heavenly immortality.\nFor thence follow two rules. The first is, \u201cthat they that have wives be\nas though they had none; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;\nand they that use this world, as not abusing it;\u201d(1880) according to the\ndirection of Paul: the second, that we should learn to bear penury with\ntranquillity and patience, as well as to enjoy abundance with moderation.\nHe who commands us to use this world as though we used it not, prohibits\nnot only all intemperance in eating and drinking, and excessive delicacy,\nambition, pride, haughtiness, and fastidiousness in our furniture, our\nhabitations, and our apparel, but every care and affection, which would\neither seduce or disturb us from thoughts of the heavenly life, and\nattention to the improvement of our souls. Now, it was anciently and truly\nobserved by Cato, That there is a great concern about adorning the body,\nand a great carelessness about virtue; and it is an old proverb, That they\nwho are much engaged in the care of the body, are generally negligent of\nthe soul. Therefore, though the liberty of believers in external things\ncannot be reduced to certain rules, yet it is evidently subject to this\nlaw, That they should indulge themselves as little as possible; that, on\nthe contrary, they should perpetually and resolutely exert themselves to\nretrench all superfluities and to restrain luxury; and that they should\ndiligently beware lest they pervert into impediments things which were\ngiven for their assistance.\n\nV. The other rule will be, That persons whose property is small should\nlearn to be patient under their privations, that they may not be tormented\nwith an immoderate desire of riches. They who observe this moderation,\nhave attained no small proficiency in the school of the Lord, as he who\nhas made no proficiency in this point can scarcely give any proof of his\nbeing a disciple of Christ. For besides that an inordinate desire of\nearthly things is accompanied by most other vices, he who is impatient\nunder penury, in abundance generally betrays the opposite passion. By this\nI mean, that he who is ashamed of a mean garment, will be proud of a\nsplendid one; he who, not content with a slender meal, is disquieted with\nthe desire of a more sumptuous one, would also intemperately abuse those\ndainties, should they fall to his lot; he who bears a private and mean\ncondition with discontent and disquietude, would not abstain from pride\nand arrogance, should he rise to eminence and honours. Let all, therefore,\nwho are sincere in the practice of piety, earnestly endeavour to learn,\nafter the apostolic example, \u201cboth to be full and to be hungry, both to\nabound and to suffer need.\u201d(1881) The Scripture has also a third rule, by\nwhich it regulates the use of earthly things; of which something was said,\nwhen we treated of the precepts of charity. For it states, that while all\nthese things are given to us by the Divine goodness, and appointed for our\nbenefit, they are, as it were, deposits intrusted to our care, of which we\nmust one day give an account. We ought, therefore, to manage them in such\na manner that this alarm may be incessantly sounding in our ears, \u201cGive an\naccount of thy stewardship.\u201d(1882) Let it also be remembered by whom this\naccount is demanded; that it is by him who has so highly recommended\nabstinence, sobriety, frugality, and modesty; who abhors profusion, pride,\nostentation, and vanity; who approves of no other management of his\nblessings, than such as is connected with charity; who has with his own\nmouth already condemned all those pleasures which seduce the heart from\nchastity and purity, or tend to impair the understanding.\n\nVI. Lastly, it is to be remarked, that the Lord commands every one of us,\nin all the actions of life, to regard his vocation. For he knows with what\ngreat inquietude the human mind is inflamed, with what desultory levity it\nis hurried hither and thither, and how insatiable is its ambition to grasp\ndifferent things at once. Therefore, to prevent universal confusion being\nproduced by our folly and temerity, he has appointed to all their\nparticular duties in different spheres of life. And that no one might\nrashly transgress the limits prescribed, he has styled such spheres of\nlife vocations, or callings. Every individual\u2019s line of life, therefore,\nis, as it were, a post assigned him by the Lord, that he may not wander\nabout in uncertainty all his days. And so necessary is this distinction,\nthat in his sight all our actions are estimated according to it, and often\nvery differently from the sentence of human reason and philosophy. There\nis no exploit esteemed more honourable, even among philosophers, than to\ndeliver our country from tyranny; but the voice of the celestial Judge\nopenly condemns the private man who lays violent hands on a tyrant. It is\nnot my design, however, to stay to enumerate examples. It is sufficient if\nwe know that the principle and foundation of right conduct in every case\nis the vocation of the Lord, and that he who disregards it will never keep\nthe right way in the duties of his station. He may sometimes, perhaps,\nachieve something apparently laudable; but however it may appear in the\neyes of men, it will be rejected at the throne of God; besides which,\nthere will be no consistency between the various parts of his life. Our\nlife, therefore, will then be best regulated, when it is directed to this\nmark; since no one will be impelled by his own temerity to attempt more\nthan is compatible with his calling, because he will know that it is\nunlawful to transgress the bounds assigned him. He that is in obscurity\nwill lead a private life without discontent, so as not to desert the\nstation in which God has placed him. It will also be no small alleviation\nof his cares, labours, troubles, and other burdens, when a man knows that\nin all these things he has God for his guide. The magistrate will execute\nhis office with greater pleasure, the father of a family will confine\nhimself to his duty with more satisfaction, and all, in their respective\nspheres of life, will bear and surmount the inconveniences, cares,\ndisappointments, and anxieties which befall them, when they shall be\npersuaded that every individual has his burden laid upon him by God. Hence\nalso will arise peculiar consolation, since there will be no employment so\nmean and sordid (provided we follow our vocation) as not to appear truly\nrespectable, and be deemed highly important in the sight of God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XI. Justification By Faith. The Name And Thing Defined.\n\n\nI think I have already explained, with sufficient care, how that men,\nbeing subject to the curse of the law, have no means left of attaining\nsalvation but through faith alone; and also what faith itself is, what\nDivine blessings it confers on man, and what effects it produces in him.\nThe substance of what I have advanced is, that Christ, being given to us\nby the goodness of God, is apprehended and possessed by us by faith, by a\nparticipation of whom we receive especially two benefits. In the first\nplace, being by his innocence reconciled to God, we have in heaven a\npropitious father instead of a judge; in the next place, being sanctified\nby his Spirit, we devote ourselves to innocence and purity of life. Of\nregeneration, which is the second benefit, I have said what I thought was\nsufficient. The method of justification has been but slightly touched,\nbecause it was necessary, first to understand that the faith, by which\nalone we attain gratuitous justification through the Divine mercy, is not\nunattended with good works, and what is the nature of the good works of\nthe saints, in which part of this question consists. The subject of\njustification, therefore, must now be fully discussed, and discussed with\nthe recollection that it is the principal hinge by which religion is\nsupported, in order that we may apply to it with the greater attention and\ncare. For unless we first of all apprehend in what situation we stand with\nrespect to God, and what his judgment is concerning us, we have no\nfoundation either for a certainty of salvation, or for the exercise of\npiety towards God. But the necessity of knowing this subject will be more\nevident from the knowledge itself.\n\nII. But that we may not stumble at the threshold, (which would be the case\nwere we to enter on a disputation concerning a subject not understood by\nus,) let us first explain the meaning of these expressions. _To be\njustified in the sight of God, To be justified by faith or by works._ He\nis said to be _justified in the sight of God_ who in the Divine judgment\nis reputed righteous, and accepted on account of his righteousness; for as\niniquity is abominable to God, so no sinner can find favour in his sight,\nas a sinner, or so long as he is considered as such. Wherever sin is,\ntherefore, it is accompanied with the wrath and vengeance of God. He is\njustified who is considered not as a sinner, but as a righteous person,\nand on that account stands in safety before the tribunal of God, where all\nsinners are confounded and ruined. As, if an innocent man be brought under\nan accusation before the tribunal of a just judge, when judgment is passed\naccording to his innocence, he is said to be justified or acquitted before\nthe judge, so he is justified before God, who, not being numbered among\nsinners, has God for a witness and asserter of his righteousness. Thus he\nmust be said, therefore, to be _justified by works_, whose life discovers\nsuch purity and holiness, as to deserve the character of righteousness\nbefore the throne of God; or who, by the integrity of his works, can\nanswer and satisfy the divine judgment. On the other hand, he will be\n_justified by faith_, who, being excluded from the righteousness of works,\napprehends by faith the righteousness of Christ, invested in which, he\nappears, in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as a righteous man.\nThus we simply explain justification to be an acceptance, by which God\nreceives us into his favour, and esteems us as righteous persons; and we\nsay that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the\nrighteousness of Christ.\n\nIII. For the confirmation of this point there are many plain testimonies\nof Scripture. In the first place, that this is the proper and most usual\nsignification of the word, cannot be denied. But since it would be too\ntedious to collect all the passages and compare them together, let it\nsuffice to have suggested it to the reader; for he will easily observe it\nof himself. I will only produce a few places, where this justification,\nwhich we speak of, is expressly handled. First, where Luke relates that\n\u201cthe people that heard Christ justified God;\u201d and where Christ pronounces\nthat \u201cwisdom is justified of all her children.\u201d(1883) _To justify God_, in\nthe former passage, does not signify to confer righteousness, which always\nremains perfect in him, although the whole world endeavour to rob him of\nit; nor, in the latter passage, does _the justifying of wisdom_ denote\nmaking the doctrine of salvation righteous, which is so of itself; but\nboth passages imply an ascription to God and to his doctrine of the praise\nwhich they deserve. Again, when Christ reprehends the Pharisees for\n\u201cjustifying themselves,\u201d(1884) he does not mean that they attained\nrighteousness by doing what was right, but that they ostentatiously\nendeavoured to gain the character of righteousness, of which they were\ndestitute. This is better understood by persons who are skilled in the\nHebrew language; which gives the appellation of _sinners_, not only to\nthose who are conscious to themselves of sin, but to persons who fall\nunder a sentence of condemnation. For Bathsheba, when she says, \u201cI and my\nson Solomon shall be counted offenders,\u201d or sinners,(1885) confesses no\ncrime, but complains, that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace\nof being numbered among condemned criminals. And it appears from the\ncontext, that this word, even in the translation, cannot be understood in\nany other than a relative sense, and that it does not denote the real\ncharacter. But with respect to the present subject, where Paul says, \u201cThe\nScripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen through faith,\u201d(1886)\nwhat can we understand, but that God imputes righteousness through faith?\nAgain, when he says that God \u201cjustifieth the ungodly which believeth in\nJesus,\u201d(1887) what can be the meaning, but that he delivers him by the\nblessing of faith from the condemnation deserved by his ungodliness? He\nspeaks still more plainly in the conclusion, when he thus exclaims: \u201cWho\nshall lay any thing to the charge of God\u2019s elect? It is God that\njustifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather,\nthat is risen again, who also maketh intercession for us.\u201d(1888) For it is\njust as if he had said, Who shall accuse them whom God absolves? Who shall\ncondemn those for whom Christ intercedes? Justification, therefore, is no\nother than an acquittal from guilt of him who was accused, as though his\ninnocence had been proved. Since God, therefore, justifies us through the\nmediation of Christ, he acquits us, not by an admission of our personal\ninnocence, but by an imputation of righteousness; so that we, who are\nunrighteous in ourselves, are considered as righteous in Christ. This is\nthe doctrine preached by Paul in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts:\n\u201cThrough this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him\nall that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be\njustified by the law of Moses.\u201d(1889) We see that after remission of sins,\nthis justification is mentioned, as if by way of explanation: we see\nclearly that it means an acquittal; that it is separated from the works of\nthe law; that it is a mere favour of Christ; that it is apprehended by\nfaith: we see, finally, the interposition of a satisfaction, when he says\nthat we are justified from sins by Christ. Thus, when it is said, that the\npublican \u201cwent down to his house justified,\u201d(1890) we cannot say that he\nobtained righteousness by any merit of works. The meaning therefore is,\nthat after he had obtained the pardon of his sins, he was considered as\nrighteous in the sight of God. He was righteous, therefore, not through\nany approbation of his works, but through God\u2019s gracious absolution.\nWherefore Ambrose beautifully styles confession of sins, a legitimate\njustification.\n\nIV. But leaving all contention about the term, if we attend to the thing\nitself, as it is described to us, every doubt will be removed. For Paul\ncertainly describes justification as an acceptance, when he says to the\nEphesians, \u201cGod hath predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus\nChrist to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the\npraise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted.\u201d(1891)\nThe meaning of this passage is the same as when in another place we are\nsaid to be \u201cjustified freely by his grace.\u201d(1892) But in the fourth\nchapter to the Romans, he first mentions an imputation of righteousness,\nand immediately represents it as consisting in remission of sins. \u201cDavid,\u201d\nsays he, \u201cdescribeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth\nrighteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are\nforgiven,\u201d &c.(1893) He there, indeed, argues not concerning a branch, but\nthe whole of justification. He also adduces the definition of it given by\nDavid, when he pronounces them to be blessed who receive the free\nforgiveness of their sins; whence it appears, that this righteousness of\nwhich he speaks is simply opposed to guilt. But the most decisive passage\nof all on this point, is where he teaches us that the grand object of the\nministry of the gospel is, that we may \u201cbe reconciled to God,\u201d because he\nis pleased to receive us into his favour through Christ, \u201cnot imputing\u201d\nour \u201ctrespasses unto\u201d us.(1894) Let the reader carefully examine the whole\ncontext; for when, by way of explanation, he just after adds, in order to\ndescribe the method of reconciliation, that Christ, \u201cwho knew no sin,\u201d was\n\u201cmade sin for us,\u201d(1895) he undoubtedly means by the term\n\u201creconciliation,\u201d no other than justification. Nor would there be any\ntruth in what he affirms in another place, that we are \u201cmade righteous by\nthe obedience of Christ,\u201d(1896) unless we are reputed righteous before\nGod, in him, and out of ourselves.\n\nV. But since Osiander has introduced I know not what monstrous notion of\nessential righteousness, by which, though he had no intention to destroy\njustification by grace, yet he has involved it in such obscurity as\ndarkens pious minds, and deprives them of a serious sense of the grace of\nChrist,\u2014it will be worth while, before I pass to any thing else, to refute\nthis idle notion. In the first place, this speculation is the mere fruit\nof insatiable curiosity. He accumulates, indeed, many testimonies of\nScripture, to prove that Christ is one with us, and we one with him, of\nwhich there is no proof necessary; but for want of observing the bond of\nthis union, he bewilders himself. For us, however, who hold that we are\nunited to Christ by the secret energy of his Spirit, it will be easy to\nobviate all his sophisms. He had conceived a notion similar to what was\nheld by the Manich\u00e6ans, so that he wished to transfuse the Divine essence\ninto men. Hence another discovery of his, that Adam was formed in the\nimage of God, because, even antecedently to the fall, Christ had been\nappointed the exemplar of the human nature. But for the sake of brevity, I\nshall only insist on the subject now before us. He says that we are one\nwith Christ. This we admit; but we at the same time deny that Christ\u2019s\nessence is blended with ours. In the next place, we assert that this\nprinciple\u2014that Christ is our righteousness because he is the eternal God,\nthe fountain of righteousness, and the essential righteousness of God\u2014is\ngrossly perverted to support his fallacies. The reader will excuse me, if\nI now just hint at these things, which the order of the treatise requires\nto be deferred to another place. But though he alleges, in vindication of\nhimself, that by the term _essential righteousness_ he only intends to\noppose the opinion that we are reputed righteous for the sake of Christ,\nyet he manifestly shows, that, not content with that righteousness which\nhas been procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ,\nhe imagines that we are substantially righteous in God, by the infusion of\nhis essence as well as his character. For this is the reason why he so\nvehemently contends, that not only Christ, but the Father and the Holy\nSpirit also dwell in us; which, though I allow it to be a truth, yet I\nmaintain that he has grossly perverted. For he ought to have fully\nconsidered the nature of this inhabitation; namely, that the Father and\nthe Spirit are in Christ; and that as \u201call the fulness of the Godhead\ndwelleth in him,\u201d(1897) so in him we possess the whole Deity. Whatever,\ntherefore, he advances concerning the Father and the Spirit separately,\nhas no other tendency but to seduce the simple from Christ. In the next\nplace, he introduces a mixture of substances, by which God, transfusing\nhimself into us, makes us, as it were, a part of himself. For he considers\nit as of no importance, that the power of the Holy Spirit unites us to\nChrist, so that he becomes our head and we become his members, unless his\nessence be blended with ours. But when speaking of the Father and the\nSpirit, he more openly betrays his opinion; which is, that we are not\njustified by the sole grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not\nsimply or really offered to us in his person; but that we are made\npartakers of the Divine righteousness when God is essentially united with\nus.\n\nVI. If he had only said, that Christ in justifying us becomes ours by an\nessential union, and that he is our head not only as man, but that the\nessence of his Divine nature also is infused into us,\u2014he might have\nentertained himself with his fancies with less mischief, nor perhaps would\nso great a contention have been excited about this reverie. But as this\nprinciple is like a cuttlefish, which, by the emission of black and turbid\nblood, conceals its many tails, there is a necessity for a vigorous\nopposition to it, unless we mean to submit to be openly robbed of that\nrighteousness which alone affords us any confidence concerning our\nsalvation. For throughout this discussion, the terms _righteousness_ and\n_justify_ are extended by him to two things. First, he understands that\n\u201cto be justified\u201d denotes not only to be reconciled to God by a free\npardon, but also to be made righteous; and that righteousness is not a\ngratuitous imputation, but a sanctity and integrity inspired by the Divine\nessence which resides in us. Secondly, he resolutely denies that Christ is\nour righteousness, as having, in the character of a priest, expiated our\nsins and appeased the Father on our behalf, but as being the eternal God\nand everlasting life. To prove the first assertion, that God justifies not\nonly by pardoning, but also by regenerating, he inquires whether God\nleaves those whom he justifies in their natural state, without any\nreformation of their manners. The answer is very easy; as Christ cannot be\ndivided, so these two blessings, which we receive together in him, are\nalso inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favour, he\nlikewise gives them the Spirit of adoption, by whose power he renews them\nin his own image. But if the brightness of the sun be inseparable from his\nheat, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by his light, and\nilluminated by his heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the present\nsubject than this similitude. The beams of the sun quicken and fertilize\nthe earth, his rays brighten and illuminate it. Here is a mutual and\nindivisible connection. Yet reason itself prohibits us to transfer to one\nwhat is peculiar to the other. In this confusion of two blessings which\nOsiander obtrudes on us, there is a similar absurdity. For as God actually\nrenews to the practice of righteousness those whom he gratuitously accepts\nas righteous, Osiander confounds that gift of regeneration with this\ngracious acceptance, and contends that they are one and the same. But the\nScripture, though it connects them together, yet enumerates them\ndistinctly, that the manifold grace of God may be the more evident to us.\nFor that passage of Paul is not superfluous, that \u201cChrist is made unto us\nrighteousness and sanctification.\u201d(1898) And whenever he argues, from the\nsalvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God, and from the\ngrace of Christ, that we are called to holiness and purity, he plainly\nindicates that it is one thing to be justified, and another thing to be\nmade new creatures. When Osiander appeals to the Scripture, he corrupts as\nmany passages as he cites. The assertion of Paul, that \u201cto him that\nworketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith\nis counted for righteousness,\u201d(1899) is explained by Osiander to denote\nmaking a man righteous. With the same temerity he corrupts the whole of\nthat fourth chapter to the Romans, and hesitates not to impose the same\nfalse gloss on the passage just cited, \u201cWho shall lay any thing to the\ncharge of God\u2019s elect? It is God that justifieth;\u201d where it is evident\nthat the apostle is treating simply of accusation and absolution, and that\nhis meaning wholly rests on the antithesis. His folly, therefore, betrays\nitself both in his arguments and in his citations of Scripture proofs.\nWith no more propriety does he treat of the word righteousness, when he\nsays, \u201cthat faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,\u201d because that\nafter having embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of God, and God\nhimself,) he was eminent for the greatest virtues. Whence it appears, that\nof two good parts, he erroneously makes one corrupt whole; for the\nrighteousness there mentioned does not belong to the whole course of\nAbraham\u2019s life; but rather the Spirit testifies that, notwithstanding the\nsingular eminence of Abraham\u2019s virtues, and his laudable and persevering\nadvancement in them, yet he did not please God any otherwise than in\nreceiving by faith the grace offered in the promise. Whence it follows,\nthat in justification there is no regard paid to works, as Paul\nconclusively argues in that passage.\n\nVII. His objection, that the power of justifying belongs not to faith of\nitself, but only as it receives Christ, I readily admit. For if faith were\nto justify of itself, or by an intrinsic efficacy, as it is expressed,\nbeing always weak and imperfect, it never could effect this but in part;\nand thus it would be a defective justification, which would only confer on\nus a partial salvation. Now, we entertain no such notion as the objection\nsupposes; on the contrary, we affirm that, strictly speaking, \u201cit is God\nthat justifies;\u201d and then we transfer this to Christ, because he is given\nto us for righteousness. Faith we compare to a vessel; for unless we come\nempty with the mouth of our soul open to implore the grace of Christ, we\ncannot receive Christ. Whence it may be inferred, that we do not detract\nfrom Christ the power of justifying, when we teach that faith receives him\nbefore it receives his righteousness. Nevertheless, I cannot admit the\nintricate comparisons of this sophist, when he says that faith is Christ;\nas though an earthen vessel were a treasure, because gold is concealed in\nit. For faith, although intrinsically it is of no dignity or value,\njustifies us by an application of Christ, just as a vessel full of money\nconstitutes a man rich. Therefore I maintain that faith, which is only the\ninstrument by which righteousness is received, cannot without absurdity be\nconfounded with Christ, who is the material cause, and at once the author\nand dispenser of so great a benefit. We have now removed the difficulty as\nto the sense in which the word _faith_ ought to be understood, when it is\napplied to justification.\n\nVIII. Respecting the reception of Christ, he goes still greater lengths;\nasserting that the internal word is received by the ministry of the\nexternal word, by which he would divert us from the priesthood of Christ\nand the person of the Mediator, to his eternal divinity. We do not divide\nChrist, but we maintain that the same person, who, by reconciling us to\nthe Father in his own flesh, has given us righteousness, is the eternal\nWord of God; and we confess that he could not otherwise have discharged\nthe office of Mediator, and procured righteousness for us, if he were not\nthe eternal God. But the opinion of Osiander is, that since Christ is both\nGod and man, he is made righteousness to us, in respect of his Divine, not\nhis human nature. Now, if this properly belong to the Divinity, it will\nnot be peculiar to Christ, but common also to the Father and the Spirit;\nsince the righteousness of one is the same as that of the others. Besides,\nwhat has been naturally eternal, cannot with propriety be said to be \u201cmade\nunto us.\u201d But though we grant that God is made righteousness unto us, how\nwill it agree with the clause which is inserted, that \u201cof God,\u201d he \u201cis\nmade unto us righteousness?\u201d This is certainly peculiar to the character\nof the Mediator, who, though he contains in himself the Divine nature, yet\nis designated by this appropriate title, by which he is distinguished from\nthe Father and the Spirit. But he ridiculously triumphs in that single\nexpression of Jeremiah, where he promises that \u201cthe Lord,\u201d _Jehovah_, will\nbe \u201cour righteousness.\u201d(1900) He can deduce nothing from this, but that\nChrist, who is our righteousness, is God manifested in the flesh. We have\nelsewhere recited from Paul\u2019s sermon, that \u201cGod hath purchased the Church\nwith his own blood.\u201d(1901) If any should infer from this, that the blood\nby which our sins were expiated, was Divine, and part of the Divine\nnature, who could bear so monstrous an error? But Osiander thinks he has\ngained every thing by this very puerile cavil; he swells, exults, and\nfills many pages with his swelling words, though the passage is simply and\nreadily explained, by saying that Jehovah, when he should become the seed\nof David, would be the righteousness of the pious; and in the same sense\nIsaiah informs us, \u201cby his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify\nmany.\u201d(1902) Let us remark, that the speaker here is the Father; that he\nattributes to his Son the office of justifying; that he adds as a reason,\nthat he is righteous; and that he places the mode or means of effecting\nthis, in the doctrine by which Christ is made known. For it is more\nsuitable to understand the word \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea in a passive sense. Hence I conclude,\nfirst, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a\nservant; secondly, that he justifies us by his own obedience to the\nFather; and, therefore, that he does this for us, not according to his\nDivine nature, but by reason of the dispensation committed to him. For\nthough God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and we are righteous\nonly by a participation of him, yet, because we have been alienated from\nhis righteousness through the unhappy breach occasioned by the fall, we\nare under the necessity of descending to this inferior remedy, to be\njustified by Christ, by the efficacy of his death and resurrection.\n\nIX. If Osiander object, that the excellence of this work surpasses the\nnature of man, and therefore can be ascribed only to the Divine\nnature,\u2014the former part of the objection I admit, but in the latter I\nmaintain that he is grossly mistaken. For although Christ could neither\npurify our souls with his blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice,\nnor absolve us from guilt, nor, in short, perform the functions of a\npriest, if he were not truly God, because human power would have been\nunequal to so great a burden, yet it is certain that he performed all\nthese things in his human nature. For if it be inquired, How are we\njustified? Paul replies, \u201cBy the obedience\u201d of Christ.(1903) But has he\nobeyed in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? Hence we\ninfer, that righteousness is presented to us in his flesh. In the other\npassage also, which I much wonder that Osiander is not ashamed to quote so\nfrequently, Paul places the source of righteousness wholly in the humanity\nof Christ. \u201cHe hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we\nmight be made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1904) Osiander lays great\nstress on \u201cthe righteousness of God,\u201d and triumphs as though he had\nevinced it to be his notion of essential righteousness; whereas the words\nconvey a very different idea,\u2014that we are righteous through the expiation\neffected by Christ. That \u201cthe righteousness of God\u201d means that which God\napproves, ought to have been known to the youngest novices; just as in\nJohn \u201cthe praise of God\u201d is opposed to \u201cthe praise of men.\u201d(1905) I know\nthat \u201cthe righteousness of God\u201d sometimes denotes that of which he is the\nauthor, and which he bestows upon us; but, without any observation of\nmine, the judicious reader will perceive that the meaning of this passage\nis only, that we stand before the tribunal of God supported by the atoning\ndeath of Christ. Nor is the term of such great importance, provided that\nOsiander coincides with us in this, that we are justified in Christ,\ninasmuch as he was made an expiatory sacrifice for us; which is altogether\nincompatible with his Divine nature. For this reason, when Christ designs\nto seal the righteousness and salvation which he has presented to us, he\nexhibits a certain pledge of it in his flesh. He calls himself, indeed,\n\u201cliving bread;\u201d but adds, by way of explanation, \u201cmy flesh is meat indeed,\nand my blood is drink indeed.\u201d This method of instruction is discovered in\nthe sacraments; which, although they direct our faith to the whole of the\nperson of Christ, not to a part of him only, yet at the same time teach\nthat the matter of justification and salvation resides in his human\nnature; not that he either justifies or vivifies, of himself as a mere\nman, but because it has pleased God to manifest in the Mediator that which\nwas incomprehensible and hidden in himself. Wherefore I am accustomed to\nsay, that Christ is, as it were, a fountain opened to us, whence we may\ndraw what were otherwise concealed and useless in that secret and deep\nfountain which flows to us in the person of the Mediator. In this manner,\nand in this sense, provided he will submit to the clear and forcible\narguments which I have adduced, I do not deny that Christ justifies us, as\nhe is God and man, and that this work is common also to the Father and the\nSpirit; and, finally, that the righteousness of which Christ makes us\npartakers, is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God.\n\nX. Moreover, that his cavils may not deceive the inexperienced, I confess\nthat we are destitute of this incomparable blessing, till Christ becomes\nours. I attribute, therefore, the highest importance to the connection\nbetween the head and members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts;\nin a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that being made\nours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.\nWe do not, then, contemplate him at a distance out of ourselves, that his\nrighteousness may be imputed to us; but because we have put him on, and\nare ingrafted into his body, and because he has deigned to unite us to\nhimself, therefore we glory in a participation of his righteousness. Thus\nwe refute the cavil of Osiander, that faith is considered by us as\nrighteousness; as though we despoiled Christ of his right, when we affirm,\nthat by faith we come to him empty, that he alone may fill us with his\ngrace. But Osiander, despising this spiritual connection, insists on a\ngross mixture of Christ with believers; and therefore invidiously gives\nthe appellation of Zuinglians to all who do not subscribe to his fanatical\nerror concerning essential righteousness; because they are not of opinion\nthat Christ is substantially eaten in the sacred supper. As for myself,\nindeed, I consider it the highest honour to be thus reproached by a man so\nproud and so absorbed in his own delusions; although he attacks not me\nalone, but other writers well known in the world, whom he ought to have\ntreated with modest respect. But this does not at all affect me, who am\nsupporting no private interest; wherefore I the more unreservedly advocate\nthis cause, conscious that I am free from every sinister motive. His great\nimportunity in insisting on essential righteousness, and an essential\ninhabitation of Christ in us, goes to this length\u2014first, that God\ntransfuses himself into us by a gross mixture of himself with us, as he\npretends that there is a carnal eating in the sacred supper; secondly,\nthat God inspires his righteousness into us, by which we are really\nrighteous with him, since, according to this man, such righteousness is as\nreally God himself, as the goodness, or holiness, or perfection of God. I\nshall not take much trouble to refute the testimonies adduced by him,\nwhich he violently perverts from the celestial to the present state. By\nChrist, says Peter, \u201care given unto us exceeding great and precious\npromises; that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine nature.\u201d(1906)\nAs though we were now such as the gospel promises we shall be at the\nsecond advent of Christ; nay, John apprizes us, that _then_ \u201cwe shall be\nlike God; for we shall see him as he is.\u201d(1907) I have thought proper to\ngive the reader only a small specimen, and endeavoured to pass over these\nimpertinences, not that it is difficult to refute them, but because I am\nunwilling to be tedious in labouring to no purpose.\n\nXI. There is yet more latent poison in the second particular, in which he\nmaintains, that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already\nsufficiently demonstrated, that although this dogma were not so\npestiferous, yet because it is weak and unsatisfactory, and evaporates\nthrough its own inanity, it ought justly to be rejected by all judicious\nand pious readers. But this is an impiety not to be tolerated\u2014under the\npretext of a twofold righteousness to weaken the assurance of salvation,\nand to elevate us above the clouds, that we may not embrace by faith the\ngrace of expiation, and call upon God with tranquillity of mind. Osiander\nridicules those who say that justification is a forensic term, because it\nis necessary for us to be actually righteous: nor is there any thing that\nhe more dislikes than the doctrine that we are justified by gratuitous\nimputation. Now, if God do not justify by absolving and pardoning us, what\nis the meaning of this declaration of Paul? \u201cGod was in Christ,\nreconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto\nthem. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we\nmight be made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1908) First I find, that\nthey are accounted righteous who are reconciled to God: the manner is\nspecified, that God justifies by pardoning; just as, in another passage,\njustification is opposed to accusation; which antithesis clearly\ndemonstrates, that the form of expression is borrowed from the practice of\ncourts. Nor is there any one, but tolerably versed in the Hebrew language,\nprovided at the same time that he be in his sound senses, who can be\nignorant that this is the original of the phrase, and that this is its\nimport and meaning. Now, let Osiander answer me whether, where Paul says\nthat \u201cDavid describeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are\nthey whose iniquities are forgiven,\u201d(1909) whether, I say, this be a\ncomplete definition or a partial one. Certainly Paul does not adduce the\ntestimony of the Psalmist, as teaching that pardon of sins is a part of\nrighteousness, or concurs to the justification of a man; but he includes\nthe whole of righteousness in a free remission, pronouncing, \u201cBlessed are\nthey whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is\nthe man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.\u201d He thence estimates and\njudges of the felicity of such a man, because in this way he becomes\nrighteous, not actually, but by imputation. Osiander objects, that it\nwould be dishonourable to God, and contrary to his nature, if he justified\nthose who still remain actually impious. But it should be remembered that,\nas I have already observed, the grace of justification is inseparable from\nregeneration, although they are distinct things. But since it is\nsufficiently known from experience, that some relics of sin always remain\nin the righteous, the manner of their justification must of necessity be\nvery different from that of their renovation to newness of life. For the\nlatter God commences in his elect, and as long as they live carries it on\ngradually, and sometimes slowly, so that they are always obnoxious at his\ntribunal to the sentence of death. He justifies them, however, not in a\npartial manner, but so completely, that they may boldly appear in heaven,\nas being invested with the purity of Christ. For no portion of\nrighteousness could satisfy our consciences, till we have ascertained that\nGod is pleased with us, as being unexceptionably righteous before him.\nWhence it follows, that the doctrine of justification is perverted and\ntotally overturned, when doubts are injected into the mind, when the\nconfidence of salvation is shaken, when bold and fearless worship is\ninterrupted, and when quiet and tranquillity with spiritual joy are not\nestablished. Whence Paul argues from the incompatibility of things\ncontrary to each other, that the inheritance is not of the law, because\nthen faith would be rendered vain;(1910) which, if it be fixed upon works,\nmust inevitably fall; since not even the most holy of all saints will find\nthem afford any ground of confidence. This difference between\njustification and regeneration (which Osiander confounds together, and\ndenominates a twofold righteousness) is beautifully expressed by Paul;\nfor, speaking of his real righteousness, or of the integrity which he\npossessed, to which Osiander gives the appellation of essential\nrighteousness, he sorrowfully exclaims, \u201cO wretched man that I am! who\nshall deliver me from the body of this death?\u201d(1911) But resorting to the\nrighteousness which is founded in the Divine mercy alone, he nobly\ntriumphs over life, and death, and reproaches, and famine, and the sword,\nand all adverse things and persons. \u201cWho shall lay any thing to the charge\nof God\u2019s elect? It is God that justifieth. For I am persuaded, that\nnothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in\nChrist Jesus our Lord.\u201d(1912) He plainly declares himself to be possessed\nof that righteousness, which alone is fully sufficient for salvation in\nthe sight of God; so that the miserable servitude, in a consciousness of\nwhich he was just before bewailing his condition, neither diminishes, nor\nin the smallest degree interrupts, the confidence with which he triumphs.\nThis diversity is sufficiently known, and is even familiar to all the\nsaints, who groan under the burden of their iniquities, and yet with\nvictorious confidence rise superior to every fear. But the objection of\nOsiander, that it is incongruous to the nature of God, recoils upon\nhimself; for, although he invests the saints with a twofold righteousness,\nas with a garment covered with skins, he is, notwithstanding, constrained\nto acknowledge that no man can please God without the remission of his\nsins. If this be true, he should at least grant that they who are not\nactually righteous, are accounted righteous in proportion, as it is\nexpressed, to the degree of imputation. But how far shall a sinner extend\nthis gracious acceptance, which is substituted in the place of\nrighteousness? Shall he estimate it by the weight? Truly he will be in\ngreat uncertainty to which side to incline the balance; because he will\nnot be able to assume to himself as much righteousness as may be necessary\nto his confidence. It is well that he, who would wish to prescribe laws to\nGod, is not the arbiter of this cause. But this address of David to God\nwill remain: \u201cThat thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be\nclear when thou judgest.\u201d(1913) And what extreme arrogance it is to\ncondemn the supreme Judge when he freely absolves, and not to be satisfied\nwith this answer, \u201cI will show mercy on whom I will show mercy!\u201d(1914) And\nyet the intercession of Moses, which God checked with this reply, was not\nthat he would spare none, but that, though they were guilty, he would\nremove their guilt and absolve them all at once. We affirm, therefore,\nthat those who were undone are justified before God by the obliteration of\ntheir sins; because, sin being the object of his hatred, he can love none\nbut those whom he justifies. But this is a wonderful method of\njustification, that sinners, being invested with the righteousness of\nChrist, dread not the judgment which they have deserved; and that, while\nthey justly condemn themselves, they are accounted righteous out of\nthemselves.\n\nXII. But the readers must be cautioned to pay a strict attention to the\nmystery which Osiander boasts that he will not conceal from them. For,\nafter having contended with great prolixity, that we do not obtain favour\nwith God solely through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,\nbecause it would be impossible for him to esteem those as righteous who\nare not so, (I use his own words,) he at length concludes, that Christ is\ngiven to us for righteousness, not in respect of his human, but of his\nDivine nature; and that, though this righteousness can only be found in\nthe person of the Mediator, yet it is the righteousness, not of man, but\nof God. He does not combine two righteousnesses, but evidently deprives\nthe humanity of Christ of all concern in the matter of justification. It\nis worth while, however, to hear what arguments he adduces. It is said in\nthe passage referred to, that \u201cChrist is made unto us wisdom,\u201d(1915) which\nis applicable only to the eternal Word. Neither, therefore, is Christ,\nconsidered as man our righteousness. I reply, that the only begotten Son\nof God was indeed his eternal wisdom; but this title is here ascribed to\nhim by Paul in a different sense, because \u201cin him are hid all the\ntreasures of wisdom and knowledge.\u201d(1916) What, therefore, he had with the\nFather, he has manifested to us; and so what Paul says, refers not to the\nessence of the Son of God, but to our benefit, and is rightly applied to\nthe humanity of Christ; because, although he was a light shining in\ndarkness before his assumption of the flesh, yet he was a hidden light\ntill he appeared in the nature of man \u201cas the Sun of righteousness;\u201d(1917)\nwherefore he calls himself \u201cthe light of the world.\u201d(1918) Osiander\nbetrays his folly likewise in objecting, that justification exceeds the\npower of angels and men; since it depends not upon the dignity of any\ncreature, but upon the appointment of God. If angels were desirous to\noffer a satisfaction to God, it would be unavailing; because they have not\nbeen appointed to it. This was peculiar to the man Christ, who was \u201cmade\nunder the law, to redeem us from the curse of the law.\u201d(1919) He likewise\nvery unjustly accuses those who deny that Christ is our righteousness\naccording to his Divine nature, of retaining only one part of Christ, and\n(what is worse) making two Gods; because, though they acknowledge that God\ndwells in us, yet they flatly deny that we are righteous through the\nrighteousness of God. For if we call Christ the author of life in\nconsequence of his having suffered death, \u201cthat he might destroy him that\nhad the power of death,\u201d(1920) it is not to be inferred that we deny this\nhonour to his complete person, as God manifested in the flesh: we only\nstate with precision the means by which the righteousness of God is\nconveyed to us, so that we may enjoy it. In this, Osiander has fallen into\na very pernicious error. We do not deny, that what is openly exhibited to\nus in Christ flows from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we\nrefuse to admit, that the righteousness conferred on us by Christ is the\nrighteousness of God as proceeding from him; but we constantly maintain\nthat we have righteousness and life in the death and resurrection of\nChrist. I pass over that shameful accumulation of passages, with which,\nwithout any discrimination, and even without common sense, he has burdened\nthe reader, in order to evince, that wherever mention is made of\nrighteousness, it ought to be understood of this essential righteousness;\nas where David implores the righteousness of God to assist him; which as\nhe does above a hundred times, Osiander hesitates not to pervert such a\ngreat number of passages. Nor is there any thing more solid in his other\nobjection, that the term \u201crighteousness\u201d is properly and rightly applied\nto that by which we are excited to rectitude of conduct, and that God\nalone \u201cworketh in us both to will and to do.\u201d(1921) Now, we do not deny,\nthat God renews us by his Spirit to holiness and righteousness of life;\nbut it should first be inquired, whether he does this immediately by\nhimself, or through the medium of his Son, with whom he has deposited all\nthe plenitude of his Spirit, that with his abundance he might relieve the\nnecessities of his members. Besides, though righteousness flows to us from\nthe secret fountain of the Divinity, yet it does not follow that Christ,\nwho in the flesh sanctified himself for our sakes,(1922) is our\nrighteousness with respect to his Divine nature. Equally frivolous is his\nassertion, that Christ himself was righteous with the righteousness of\nGod; because, if he had not been influenced by the will of the Father, not\neven he could have performed the part assigned him. For though it has been\nelsewhere observed, that all the merit of Christ himself flows from the\nmere favour of God, yet this affords no countenance to the fanciful notion\nwith which Osiander fascinates his own eyes and those of the injudicious.\nFor who would admit the inference, that because God is the original source\nof our righteousness, we are therefore essentially righteous, and have the\nessence of the Divine righteousness residing in us? In redeeming the\nChurch (Isaiah says) God \u201cput on righteousness as a breastplate;\u201d(1923)\nbut was it to spoil Christ of the armour which he had given him, and to\nprevent his being a perfect Redeemer? The prophet only meant that God\nborrowed nothing extrinsic to himself, and had no assistance in the work\nof our redemption. Paul has briefly intimated the same in other words,\nsaying that he has given us salvation in order \u201cto declare his\nrighteousness.\u201d(1924) Nor does this at all contradict what he states in\nanother place, \u201cthat by the obedience of one we are made righteous.\u201d(1925)\nTo conclude: whoever fabricates a twofold righteousness, that wretched\nsouls may not rely wholly and exclusively on the Divine mercy, makes\nChrist an object of contempt, and crowns him with platted thorns.\n\nXIII. But as many persons imagine righteousness to be composed of faith\nand works, let us also prove, before we proceed, that the righteousness of\nfaith is so exceedingly different from that of works, that if one be\nestablished, the other must necessarily be subverted. The apostle says, \u201cI\ncount all things but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not\nhaving mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is\nthrough the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by\nfaith.\u201d(1926) Here we see a comparison of two opposites, and an\nimplication that his own righteousness must be forsaken by him who wishes\nto obtain the righteousness of Christ. Wherefore, in another place, he\nstates this to have been the cause of the ruin of the Jews, that, \u201cgoing\nabout to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted\nthemselves unto the righteousness of God.\u201d(1927) If, by establishing our\nown righteousness, we reject the righteousness of God, then, in order to\nobtain the latter, the former must doubtless be entirely renounced. He\nconveys the same sentiment when he asserts, that \u201cboasting is excluded. By\nwhat law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.\u201d(1928) Whence it\nfollows, that as long as there remains the least particle of righteousness\nin our works, we retain some cause for boasting. But if faith excludes all\nboasting, the righteousness of works can by no means be associated with\nthe righteousness of faith. To this purpose he speaks so clearly in the\nfourth chapter to the Romans, as to leave no room for cavil or evasion.\n\u201cIf Abraham (says he) were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.\u201d\nHe adds, \u201cbut\u201d he hath \u201cnot\u201d whereof to glory \u201cbefore God.\u201d(1929) It\nfollows, therefore, that he was not justified by works. Then he advances\nanother argument from two opposites. \u201cTo him that worketh is the reward\nnot reckoned of grace, but of debt.\u201d(1930) But righteousness is attributed\nto faith through grace. Therefore it is not from the merit of works.\nAdieu, therefore, to the fanciful notion of those who imagine a\nrighteousness compounded of faith and works.\n\nXIV. The sophists, who amuse and delight themselves with perversion of the\nScripture and vain cavils, think they have found a most excellent\nsubterfuge, when they explain _works_, in these passages, to mean those\nwhich men yet unregenerate perform without the grace of Christ, merely\nthrough the unassisted efforts of their own free\u2010will; and deny that they\nrelate to spiritual works. Thus, according to them, a man is justified\nboth by faith and by works, only the works are not properly his own, but\nthe gifts of Christ and the fruits of regeneration. For they say that Paul\nspoke in this manner, only that the Jews, who relied on their own\nstrength, might be convinced of their folly in arrogating righteousness to\nthemselves, whereas it is conferred on us solely by the Spirit of Christ,\nnot by any exertion properly our own. But they do not observe, that in the\ncontrast of legal and evangelical righteousness, which Paul introduces in\nanother place, all works are excluded, by what title soever they may be\ndistinguished. For he teaches that this is the righteousness of the law,\nthat he who has fulfilled the command of the law shall obtain\nsalvation;(1931) but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing\nthat Christ has died and is risen again.(1932) Besides, we shall see, as\nwe proceed, in its proper place, that sanctification and righteousness are\nseparate blessings of Christ. Whence it follows, that even spiritual works\nare not taken into the account, when the power of justifying is attributed\nto faith. And the assertion of Paul, in the place just cited, that Abraham\nhas not whereof to glory before God, since he was not justified by works,\nought not to be restricted to any literal appearance or external display\nof virtue, or to any efforts of free\u2010will; but though the life of the\npatriarch was spiritual, and almost angelic, yet his works did not possess\nsufficient merit to justify him before God.\n\nXV. The errors of the schoolmen, who mingle their preparations, are rather\nmore gross; but they instil into the simple and incautious a doctrine\nequally corrupt, while under the pretext of the Spirit and of grace, they\nconceal the mercy of God, which alone can calm the terrors of the\nconscience. We confess, indeed, with Paul, that \u201cthe doers of the law are\njustified before God;\u201d(1933) but since we are all far from being observers\nof the law, we conclude, that those works which should be principally\navailable to justification, afford us no assistance, because we are\ndestitute of them. With respect to the common Papists, or schoolmen, they\nare in this matter doubly deceived; both in denominating faith a certainty\nof conscience in expecting from God a reward of merit, and in explaining\nthe grace of God to be, not an imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but\nthe Spirit assisting to the pursuit of holiness. They read in the apostle,\n\u201cHe that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder\nof them that diligently seek him.\u201d(1934) But they do not consider the\nmanner of seeking him. And that they mistake the sense of the word\n\u201cgrace,\u201d is evident from their writings. For Lombard represents\njustification by Christ as given us in two ways. He says, \u201cThe death of\nChrist justifies us, first, because it excites charity in our hearts, by\nwhich we are made actually righteous; secondly, because it destroys sin,\nby which the devil held us in captivity, so that now it cannot condemn\nus.\u201d We see how he considers the grace of God in justification to consist\nin our being directed to good works by the grace of the Holy Spirit. He\nwished, indeed, to follow the opinion of Augustine; but he follows him at\na great distance, and even deviates considerably from a close imitation of\nhim; for whatever he finds clearly stated by him, he obscures, and\nwhatever he finds pure in him, he corrupts. The schools have always been\nrunning into worse and worse errors, till at length they have precipitated\nthemselves into a kind of Pelagianism. Nor, indeed, is the opinion of\nAugustine, or at least his manner of expression, to be altogether\nadmitted. For though he excellently despoils man of all the praise of\nrighteousness, and ascribes the whole to the grace of God, yet he refers\ngrace to sanctification, in which we are regenerated by the Spirit to\nnewness of life.\n\nXVI. The Scripture, when speaking of the righteousness of faith, leads us\nto something very different. It teaches us, that being diverted from the\ncontemplation of our own works, we should regard nothing but the mercy of\nGod and the perfection of Christ. For it states this to be the order of\njustification; that from the beginning God deigns to embrace sinful man\nwith his pure and gratuitous goodness, contemplating nothing in him to\nexcite mercy, but his misery; (for God beholds him utterly destitute of\nall good works;) deriving from himself the motive for blessing him, that\nhe may affect the sinner himself with a sense of his supreme goodness,\nwho, losing all confidence in his own works, rests the whole of his\nsalvation on the Divine mercy. This is the sentiment of faith, by which\nthe sinner comes to the enjoyment of his salvation, when he knows from the\ndoctrine of the gospel that he is reconciled to God; that having obtained\nremission of sins, he is justified by the intervention of the\nrighteousness of Christ; and though regenerated by the Spirit of God, he\nthinks on everlasting righteousness reserved for him, not in the good\nworks to which he devotes himself, but solely in the righteousness of\nChrist. When all these things shall have been particularly examined, they\nwill afford a perspicuous explication of our opinion. They will, however,\nbe better digested in a different order from that in which they have been\nproposed. But it is of little importance, provided they are so connected\nwith each other, that we may have the whole subject rightly stated and\nwell confirmed.\n\nXVII. Here it is proper to recall to remembrance the relation we have\nbefore stated between faith and the gospel; since the reason why faith is\nsaid to justify, is, that it receives and embraces the righteousness\noffered in the gospel. But its being offered by the gospel absolutely\nexcludes all consideration of works. This Paul very clearly demonstrates\non various occasions; and particularly in two passages. In his Epistle to\nthe Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says, \u201cMoses describeth\nthe righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those\nthings shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith\nspeaketh on this wise: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord\nJesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the\ndead, thou shalt be saved.\u201d(1935) Do you perceive how he thus\ndiscriminates between the law and the gospel, that the former attributes\nrighteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely, without the\nassistance of works? It is a remarkable passage, and may serve to\nextricate us from a multitude of difficulties, if we understand that the\nrighteousness which is given us by the gospel is free from all legal\nconditions. This is the reason why he more than once strongly opposes the\n_promise_ to the _law_. \u201cIf the inheritance be of the law, it is no more\nof promise;\u201d(1936) and more in the same chapter to the same purpose. It is\ncertain that the law also has its promises. Wherefore, unless we will\nconfess the comparison to be improper, there must be something distinct\nand different in the promises of the gospel. Now, what can that be, but\nthat they are gratuitous and solely dependent on the Divine mercy, whilst\nthe promises of the law depend on the condition of works? Nor let any one\nobject, that it is only the righteousness which men would obtrude on God\nfrom their own natural powers and free\u2010will that is rejected; since Paul\nteaches it as a universal truth, that the precepts of the law are\nunprofitable, because, not only among the vulgar, but even among the very\nbest of men, there is not one who can fulfil them.(1937) Love is certainly\nthe principal branch of the law: when the Spirit of God forms us to it,\nwhy does it not constitute any part of our righteousness, but because even\nin the saints it is imperfect, and therefore of itself deserves no reward?\n\nXVIII. The other passage is as follows: \u201cThat no man is justified by the\nlaw in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith.\nAnd the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in\nthem.\u201d(1938) How could this argument be supported, unless it were certain\nthat works do not come into the account of faith, but are to be entirely\nseparated from it? The law, he says, differs from faith. Why? Because\nworks are required to the righteousness of the law. It follows, therefore,\nthat works are not required to the righteousness of faith. From this\nstatement it appears, that they who are justified by faith, are justified\nwithout the merit of works, and beyond the merit of works; for faith\nreceives that righteousness which the gospel bestows; and the gospel\ndiffers from the law in this respect, that it does not confine\nrighteousness to works, but rests it entirely on the mercy of God. He\nargues in a similar manner to the Romans, that \u201cAbraham had not whereof to\nglory; for he believed God, and it was counted unto him for\nrighteousness;\u201d(1939) and by way of confirmation he subjoins, that then\nthere is room for the righteousness of faith when there are no works which\nmerit any reward. He tells us, that where there are works, they receive a\nreward \u201cof debt,\u201d but that what is given to faith is \u201cof grace;\u201d for this\nis the clear import of the language which he there uses. When he adds, a\nlittle after, \u201cTherefore it is of faith\u201d that we obtain the inheritance,\nin order \u201cthat it might be by grace,\u201d(1940) he infers that the inheritance\nis gratuitous, because it is received by faith: and why is this, but\nbecause faith, without any assistance of works, depends wholly on the\nDivine mercy? And in the same sense undoubtedly he elsewhere teaches us,\nthat \u201cthe righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being\nwitnessed by the law and the prophets;\u201d(1941) because, by excluding the\nlaw, he denies that righteousness is assisted by works, or that we obtain\nit by working, but asserts that we come empty in order to receive it.\n\nXIX. The reader will now discover, with what justice the sophists of the\npresent day cavil at our doctrine, when we say _that a man is justified by\nfaith only_. That a man is justified _by faith_, they do not deny, because\nthe Scripture so often declares it; but since it is nowhere expressly said\nto be by faith only, they cannot bear this addition to be made. But what\nreply will they give to these words of Paul, where he contends that\n\u201crighteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous?\u201d(1942) How can any\nthing gratuitous consist with works? And by what cavils will they elude\nwhat he asserts in another place, that in the gospel \u201cis the righteousness\nof God revealed?\u201d(1943) If righteousness is revealed in the gospel, it is\ncertainly not a mutilated and partial, but a complete and perfect one. The\nlaw, therefore, has no concern in it. And respecting this exclusive\nparticle, _only_, they rest on an evasion which is not only false, but\nglaringly ridiculous. For does not he most completely attribute every\nthing to faith alone, who denies every thing to works? What is the meaning\nof these expressions of Paul? \u201cRighteousness is manifested without the\nlaw,\u201d \u201cjustified freely by his grace,\u201d \u201cjustified without the deeds of the\nlaw.\u201d(1944) Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, which, though it is\nnot of their own invention, but borrowed from Origen and some of the\nancients, is nevertheless very absurd. They pretend that the works\nexcluded are the ceremonial works of the law, not the moral works. They\nhave made such a proficiency by their perpetual disputations, that they\nhave forgotten the first elements of logic. Do they suppose the apostle to\nhave been insane, when he adduced these passages in proof of his doctrine?\n\u201cThe man that doeth them shall live in them;\u201d and \u201cCursed is every one\nthat continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law\nto do them.\u201d(1945) If they be in their sober senses, they will not assert\nthat life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse\ndenounced merely on the transgressors of them. If these places are to be\nunderstood of the moral law, it is beyond a doubt, that moral works\nlikewise are excluded from the power to justify. To the same purpose are\nthese arguments which he uses: \u201cFor by the law is the knowledge of sin;\u201d\nconsequently not righteousness. \u201cBecause the law worketh wrath,\u201d(1946)\ntherefore not righteousness. Since the law cannot assure our consciences,\nneither can it confer righteousness. Since faith is counted for\nrighteousness, consequently righteousness is not a reward of works, but is\ngratuitously bestowed. Since we are justified by faith, boasting is\nprecluded. \u201cIf there had been a law given which could have given life,\nverily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath\nconcluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might\nbe given to them that believe.\u201d(1947) Let them idly pretend, if they dare,\nthat these are applicable to ceremonies, not to morals; but even children\nwould explode such consummate impudence. We may therefore be assured, that\nwhen the power of justifying is denied to the law, the whole law is\nincluded.\n\nXX. If any one should wonder why the apostle does not content himself with\nsimply mentioning _works_, but says _works of the law_, the reason is\nobvious. For though works are so greatly esteemed, they derive their value\nfrom the Divine approbation rather than from any intrinsic excellence. For\nwho can dare to boast to God of any righteousness of works, but what he\nhas approved? Who can dare to claim any reward as due to them, but what he\nhas promised? It is owing, therefore, to the Divine favour, that they are\naccounted worthy both of the title and of the reward of righteousness; and\nso they are valuable, only when they are intended as acts of obedience to\nGod. Wherefore the apostle, in another place, in order to prove that\nAbraham could not be justified by works, alleges, that \u201cthe law was four\nhundred and thirty years after the covenant was confirmed.\u201d(1948) Ignorant\npersons would ridicule such an argument, because there might have been\nrighteous works before the promulgation of the law; but knowing that works\nhave no such intrinsic worth, independently of the testimony and esteem of\nGod, he has taken it for granted that, antecedently to the law, they had\nno power to justify. We know why he expressly mentions \u201cthe works of the\nlaw,\u201d when he means to deny justification by works; it is because they\nalone can furnish any occasion of controversy. However, he likewise\nexcludes all works, without any limitation, as when he says, \u201cDavid\ndescribeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth\nrighteousness without works.\u201d(1949) They cannot, therefore, by any\nsubtleties prevent us from retaining this general exclusive particle. It\nis in vain, also, that they catch at another frivolous subtlety, alleging\nthat we are justified only by that \u201cfaith which worketh by love;\u201d(1950)\nwith a view to represent righteousness as depending on love. We\nacknowledge, indeed, with Paul, that no other faith justifies, except that\n\u201cwhich worketh by love;\u201d but it does not derive its power to justify from\nthe efficacy of that love. It justifies in no other way than as it\nintroduces us into a participation of the righteousness of Christ.\nOtherwise there would be no force in the argument so strenuously urged by\nthe apostle. \u201cTo him that worketh,\u201d says he, \u201cis the reward not reckoned\nof grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him\nthat justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for\nrighteousness.\u201d(1951) Was it possible for him to speak more plainly than\nby thus asserting, that there is no righteousness of faith, except where\nthere are no works entitled to any reward; and that faith is imputed for\nrighteousness, only when righteousness is conferred through unmerited\ngrace?\n\nXXI. Now, let us examine the truth of what has been asserted in the\ndefinition, that the righteousness of faith is a reconciliation with God,\nwhich consists solely in remission of sins.(1952) We must always return to\nthis axiom\u2014That the Divine wrath remains on all men, as long as they\ncontinue to be sinners. This Isaiah has beautifully expressed in the\nfollowing words: \u201cThe Lord\u2019s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save;\nneither is his ear heavy, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have\nseparated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from\nyou, that he will not hear.\u201d(1953) We are informed, that sin makes a\ndivision between man and God, and turns the Divine countenance away from\nthe sinner. Nor can it be otherwise; because it is incompatible with his\nrighteousness to have any communion with sin. Hence the apostle teaches,\nthat man is an enemy to God, till he be reconciled to him through\nChrist.(1954) Whom, therefore, the Lord receives into fellowship, him he\nis said to justify; because he cannot receive any one into favour or into\nfellowship with himself, without making him from a sinner to be a\nrighteous person. This, we add, is accomplished by the remission of sins.\nFor if they, whom the Lord has reconciled to himself, be judged according\nto their works, they will still be found actually sinners; who,\nnotwithstanding, must be absolved and free from sin. It appears, then,\nthat those whom God receives, are made righteous no otherwise than as they\nare purified by being cleansed from all their defilements by the remission\nof their sins; so that such a righteousness may, in one word, be\ndenominated a remission of sins.\n\nXXII. Both these points are fully established by the language of Paul,\nwhich I have already recited. \u201cGod was in Christ, reconciling the world\nunto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed\nunto us the word of reconciliation.\u201d(1955) Then he adds the substance of\nhis ministry: \u201cHe hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we\nmight be made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1956) The terms\n\u201crighteousness\u201d and \u201creconciliation\u201d are here used by him\nindiscriminately, to teach us that they are mutually comprehended in each\nother. And he states the manner of obtaining this righteousness to consist\nin our transgressions not being imputed to us. Wherefore we can no longer\ndoubt how God justifies, when we hear that he reconciles us to himself by\nnot imputing our sins to us. Thus, in the Epistle to the Romans, the\napostle proves, that \u201cGod imputeth righteousness without works,\u201d from the\ntestimony of David, who declares, \u201cBlessed are they whose iniquities are\nforgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord\nwill not impute sin.\u201d(1957) By \u201cblessedness,\u201d in this passage, he\nundoubtedly means righteousness; for since he asserts it to consist in\nremission of sins, there is no reason for our adopting any other\ndefinition of it. Wherefore Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist,\nplaces \u201cthe knowledge of salvation\u201d in \u201cthe remission of sins.\u201d(1958) And\nPaul, observing the same rule in the sermon which he preached to the\npeople of Antioch on the subject of salvation, is stated by Luke to have\nconcluded in the following manner: \u201cThrough this man is preached unto you\nthe forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from\nall things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of\nMoses.\u201d(1959) The apostle thus connects \u201cforgiveness of sins\u201d with\n\u201cjustification,\u201d to show that they are identically the same; whence he\njustly argues, that this righteousness which we obtain through the favour\nof God is gratuitously bestowed upon us. Nor should it be thought a\nstrange expression, that believers are justified before God, not by their\nworks, but by his gracious acceptance of them; since it occurs so\nfrequently in the Scripture, and sometimes also in the fathers. Augustine\nsays, \u201cThe righteousness of the saints, in this world, consists rather in\nthe remission of their sins than in the perfection of their virtues.\u201d With\nwhich corresponds the remarkable observation of Bernard: \u201cNot to sin at\nall, is the righteousness of God; but the righteousness of man is the\nDivine grace and mercy.\u201d He had before asserted, \u201cthat Christ is\nrighteousness to us in absolution, and therefore that they alone are\nrighteous who have obtained pardon through his mercy.\u201d\n\nXXIII. Hence, also, it is evident, that we obtain justification before\nGod, solely by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ. Which is\nequivalent to saying, that a man is righteous, not in himself, but because\nthe righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation; and this\nis a point which deserves an attentive consideration. For it supersedes\nthat idle notion, that a man is justified by faith, because faith receives\nthe Spirit of God by whom he is made righteous; which is too repugnant to\nthe foregoing doctrine, ever to be reconcilable to it. For he must\ncertainly be destitute of all righteousness of his own, who is taught to\nseek a righteousness out of himself. This is most clearly asserted by the\napostle, when he says, \u201cHe hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no\nsin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.\u201d(1960) We see\nthat our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; and that all\nour title to it rests solely on our being partakers of Christ; for in\npossessing him, we possess all his riches with him. Nor does any objection\narise from what he states in another place, that \u201cGod, sending his own Son\nin the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;\nthat the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us;\u201d(1961) where\nhe intends no other fulfilment than what we obtain by imputation. For the\nLord Christ so communicates his righteousness to us, that, with reference\nto the Divine judgment, he transfuses its virtue into us in a most\nwonderful manner. That the apostle intended no other, abundantly appears\nfrom another declaration, which he had made just before: \u201cAs by one man\u2019s\ndisobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many\nbe made righteous.\u201d(1962) What is placing our righteousness in the\nobedience of Christ, but asserting, that we are accounted righteous only\nbecause his obedience is accepted for us as if it were our own? Wherefore\nAmbrose appears to me to have very beautifully exemplified this\nrighteousness in the benediction of Jacob; that as he, who had on his own\naccount no claim to the privileges of primogeniture, being concealed in\nhis brother\u2019s habit, and invested with his garment, which diffused a most\nexcellent odour, insinuated himself into the favour of his father, that he\nmight receive the benediction to his own advantage, under the character of\nanother; so we shelter ourselves under the precious purity of Christ our\nelder brother, that we may obtain the testimony of righteousness in the\nsight of God. The words of Ambrose are, \u201cThat Isaac smelled the odour of\nthe garments, perhaps indicates, that we are justified not by works, but\nby faith; since the infirmity of the flesh is an impediment to works, but\nthe brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of sin, conceals the\nerror of our actions.\u201d And such is indeed the real fact; for that we may\nappear before the face of God to salvation, it is necessary for us to be\nperfumed with his fragrance, and to have all our deformities concealed and\nabsorbed in his perfection.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XII. A Consideration Of The Divine Tribunal, Necessary To A\nSerious Conviction Of Gratuitous Justification.\n\n\nThough it appears, from the plainest testimonies, that all these things\nare strictly true, yet we shall not clearly discover how necessary they\nare, till we shall have taken a view of what ought to be the foundation of\nall this argument. In the first place, therefore, we should reflect that\nwe are not treating of the righteousness of a human court, but of that of\nthe heavenly tribunal; in order that we may not apply any diminutive\nstandard of our own, to estimate the integrity of conduct required to\nsatisfy the Divine justice. But it is wonderful, with what temerity and\npresumption this is commonly decided; and it is even observable, that no\nmen give us more confident or pompous declamations concerning the\nrighteousness of works, than those who are notoriously guilty of open sins\nor addicted to secret vices. This arises from their never thinking of the\nrighteousness of God, the smallest sense of which would prevent them from\ntreating it with such contempt. And certainly it is exceedingly\nundervalued, if it be not acknowledged to be so perfect that nothing can\nbe acceptable to it but what is absolutely complete and immaculate, such\nas it never was, nor ever will be, possible to find in fallen man. It is\neasy for any one in the cloisters of the schools, to indulge himself in\nidle speculations on the merit of works to justify men; but when he comes\ninto the presence of God, he must bid farewell to these amusements, for\nthere the business is transacted with seriousness, and no ludicrous\nlogomachy practised. To this point, then, must our attention be directed,\nif we wish to make any useful inquiry concerning true righteousness; how\nwe can answer the celestial Judge, when he shall call us to an account.\nLet us place that Judge before our eyes, not according to the spontaneous\nimaginations of our minds, but according to the descriptions given of him\nin the Scripture; which represents him as one whose refulgence eclipses\nthe stars, whose power melts the mountains, whose anger shakes the earth,\nwhose wisdom takes the subtle in their own craftiness, whose purity makes\nall things appear polluted, whose righteousness even the angels are unable\nto bear, who acquits not the guilty, whose vengeance, when it is once\nkindled, penetrates even to the abyss of hell.(1963) Let him seat himself,\nI say, on the tribunal, to examine the actions of men: who will present\nhimself fearless before his throne? \u201cWho shall dwell with the devouring\nfire?\u201d saith the prophet. \u201cWho shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He\nthat walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly,\u201d &c.(1964) Now let him\ncome forward, whoever he is. But this answer causes not one to appear.\nFor, on the contrary, we hear this fearful speech, \u201cIf thou, Lord,\nshouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?\u201d(1965) In truth, all\nmust speedily perish, as it is written in another place, \u201cShall mortal man\nbe more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold, he\nput no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly; how\nmuch less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the\ndust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning\nto evening.\u201d(1966) Again: \u201cBehold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea,\nthe heavens are not clean in his sight; how much more abominable and\nfilthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?\u201d(1967) I confess that\nin the Book of Job mention is made of a righteousness which is superior to\nthe observance of the law. And it will be of use to remember this\ndistinction; because, though any one could satisfy the law, he could not\neven then stand the scrutiny of that righteousness which exceeds all\ncomprehension. Therefore, though Job is conscious of his own integrity,\nyet he is mute with astonishment, when he sees that God could not be\npleased even with the sanctity of angels, if he were to enter into a\nstrict examination of their works. I shall, therefore, now pass over that\nrighteousness to which I have alluded, because it is incomprehensible, and\ncontent myself with asserting, that we must be worse than stupid, if, on\nan examination of our lives by the rule of the written law, we are not\ntormented with awful dread in consequence of so many maledictions, which\nGod has designed to arouse us, and among the rest this general one:\n\u201cCursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do\nthem.\u201d(1968) In short, this whole controversy will be uninteresting and\nuseless, unless every one present himself as a criminal before the\ncelestial Judge, and voluntarily prostrate and humble himself in deep\nsolicitude concerning his absolution.\n\nII. To this point our eyes ought to have been raised, that we might learn\nrather to tremble through fear, than to indulge in vain exultation. It is\neasy, indeed, while the comparison is made only between men, for every man\nto imagine himself to be possessed of something which others ought not to\ncontemn; but when we ascend to the contemplation of God, that confidence\nis immediately lost. And the case of our soul with respect to God is\nsimilar to that of our body with respect to the visible heavens; for the\neye, as long as it is employed in beholding adjacent objects, receives\nproofs of its own perspicacity; but if it be directed towards the sun,\ndazzled and confounded with his overpowering brightness, it feels no less\ndebility in beholding him, than strength in the view of inferior objects.\nLet us not, then, deceive ourselves with a vain confidence, although we\nconsider ourselves equal or superior to other men. That is nothing to God,\nto whose decision this cause must be submitted. But if our insolence\ncannot be restrained by these admonitions, he will reply to us in the\nlanguage which he addressed to the Pharisees: \u201cYe are they which justify\nyourselves before men; but that which is highly esteemed among men, is\nabomination in the sight of God.\u201d(1969) Go now, and among men proudly\nglory in your righteousness, while the God of heaven abominates it. But\nwhat is the language of the servants of God, who are truly taught by his\nSpirit? One says, \u201cEnter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy\nsight shall no man living be justified.\u201d(1970) And another, though in a\nsense somewhat different, \u201cHow should man be just with God? If he will\ncontend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.\u201d(1971) Here we\nare plainly informed respecting the righteousness of God, that it is such\nas no human works can satisfy; and such as renders it impossible for us,\nif accused of a thousand crimes, to exculpate ourselves from one of them.\nThe same idea of this righteousness had very properly been entertained by\nPaul, that \u201cchosen vessel\u201d(1972) of God, when he professed, \u201cI am\nconscious to myself of nothing; yet am I not hereby justified.\u201d(1973)\n\nIII. Nor is it only in the sacred Scriptures that such examples are found.\nAll pious writers discover similar sentiments. Thus Augustine says, \u201cThe\nonly hope of all the pious, who groan under this burden of corruptible\nflesh, and amidst the infirmities of this life, is, that we have a\nMediator, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our\nsins.\u201d What is the meaning of this observation? If this is their only\nhope, where is any confidence in works? For when he asserts this to be the\nonly one, he precludes every other. Bernard also says, \u201cAnd in fact where\ncan be found safe and solid rest and security for the weak, but in the\nwounds of the Saviour? There I dwell with the greater security, in\nproportion to his power to save. The world rages, the body oppresses, the\ndevil lies in wait to destroy. I do not fall, because my foundation is on\na firm rock. I have committed heinous sin. My conscience is disturbed, but\nshall not fall into despair, because I shall recall to remembrance the\nwounds of the Lord.\u201d From these considerations he afterwards concludes,\n\u201cMy merit, therefore, is the compassion of the Lord: I am clearly not\ndestitute of merit, as long as he is not destitute of compassions. But if\nthe mercies of the Lord be a multitude of mercies, my merits are likewise\nequally numerous. Shall I sing of my own righteousness? O Lord, I will\nremember thy righteousness alone. For it is mine also, since he is made of\nGod righteousness unto me.\u201d Again, in another place: \u201cThis is the whole\nmerit of man\u2014to fix all his hope on him who saves the whole man.\u201d Likewise\nin another place, retaining peace to himself, and ascribing the glory to\nGod, he says, \u201cTo thee let the glory remain undiminished. It is happy for\nme, if I have peace. The glory I entirely renounce; lest, if I usurp what\nis not mine, I lose also that which is offered me.\u201d In another place he is\nstill more explicit: \u201cWhy should the Church be solicitous about merits,\nwhile it has a stronger and more secure reason for glorying in the designs\nof God? You need not inquire on account of what merits we hope for\nblessings, especially when you read in the prophet, \u2018Thus saith the Lord\nGod; I do not this for your sakes, but for mine holy name\u2019s sake.\u2019(1974)\nIt suffices with respect to merit, to know that merits are not sufficient;\nbut as it suffices for merit not to presume on merits, so to be destitute\nof merits is sufficient cause of condemnation.\u201d We must excuse his custom\nof freely using the word _merits_ for good works. But his ultimate design\nwas to terrify hypocrites, who indulge themselves in a licentious course\nof sin against the grace of God; as he presently declares: \u201cHappy is the\nChurch which wants neither merits without presumption, nor presumption\nwithout merits. It has some ground of presumption, but not merits. It has\nmerits, but in order to deserve, not to presume. Is not the absence of\npresumption itself a merit? Therefore the Church presumes the more\nsecurely, because it does not presume, having ample cause for glorying in\nthe multitude of the Divine mercies.\u201d\n\nIV. This is the real truth. The troubled conscience finds this to be the\nonly asylum of safety, where it can enjoy any tranquillity, when it has to\ndo with the Divine justice. For if the stars, which appeared most\nbrilliant during the night, lose their splendour on the rising of the sun,\nwhat can we suppose will be the case with the most excellent innocence of\nman, when compared with the purity of God? For that will be an examination\ninconceivably severe, which shall penetrate into all the most secret\nthoughts of the heart, and, as Paul says, \u201cbring to light the hidden\nthings of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts;\u201d(1975)\nwhich shall constrain the reluctant conscience to confess all those things\nwhich have now passed away even from our own remembrance. We shall be\nurged by an accusing devil, who has been privy to all the crimes which he\nhas impelled us to perpetrate. There the external appearance of good\nworks, which now is the sole object of esteem, will be of no avail;\nsincerity of heart is all that will be required. Wherefore hypocrisy, not\nonly that by which a man, conscious of his guilt before God, affects\nostentation before men, but that also by which every man imposes on\nhimself before God, for we are all prone to self\u2010complacency and\nadulation; hypocrisy in all its forms will then be overwhelmed with\nconfusion, however it may now be intoxicated with presumption and pride.\nPersons who never look forward to such a spectacle, may, indeed,\ndelightfully and complacently compose for themselves a temporary\nrighteousness, of which they will immediately be stripped at the Divine\njudgment; just as immense riches, accumulated by us in a dream, vanish as\nsoon as we awake. But they who inquire seriously, and as in the presence\nof God, respecting the true standard of righteousness, will certainly find\nthat all the actions of men, if estimated according to their intrinsic\nworth, are utterly defiled and polluted; that what is commonly considered\nas righteousness, is, in the Divine view, nothing but iniquity; that what\nis accounted integrity, is mere pollution; and that what is reputed glory,\nis real ignominy.\n\nV. From this contemplation of the Divine perfection, let us not be\nunwilling to descend to take a view of ourselves, without adulation or\nblind self\u2010love. For it is not to be wondered at, if we are so extremely\nblind in this respect, since not one of us is sufficiently cautious of\nthat pestilent self\u2010indulgence, which the Scripture declares to be\nnaturally inherent in us all. \u201cEvery way of man,\u201d says Solomon, \u201cis right\nin his own eyes.\u201d(1976) Again: \u201cAll the ways of a man are clean in his own\neyes.\u201d(1977) But what follows from this? Is he absolved from guilt by this\ndelusion? Not at all; but, as is immediately added, \u201cthe Lord weigheth the\nspirits;\u201d that is, while men are congratulating themselves on account of\nthe external mask of righteousness which they wear, the Lord is at the\nsame time weighing in his own balance the latent impurity of their hearts.\nSince we are so far from deriving any advantage, therefore, from such\nblandishments, let us not voluntarily delude ourselves to our own\nperdition. That we may examine ourselves properly, it is necessary for us\nto summon our conscience to the tribunal of God. For we have the greatest\nneed of his light in order to detect the recesses of our depravity, which\notherwise are too deeply concealed. For then only shall we clearly\nperceive the force of this language: \u201cHow can man be justified with\nGod\u2014man, who is\u201d corruption and \u201ca worm, abominable and filthy, and who\ndrinketh iniquity like water?\u201d(1978) \u201cWho can bring a clean thing out of\nan unclean? Not one.\u201d(1979) Then also we shall experience what Job said\nconcerning himself: \u201cIf I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me;\nif I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.\u201d(1980) For the\ncomplaint, which the prophet formerly made respecting Israel, \u201cAll we like\nsheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;\u201d(1981) is\napplicable not only to one period of time, but to all ages. For he there\ncomprehends all to whom the grace of redemption was to extend; and the\nrigour of this examination ought to proceed till it shall have filled us\nwith complete consternation, and thus prepared us to receive the grace of\nChrist. For he is deceived who supposes himself capable of this enjoyment,\nwithout having first been truly humbled. It is a well\u2010known observation,\nthat \u201cGod resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.\u201d(1982)\n\nVI. But what means have we of humbling ourselves, except by submitting,\nall poor and destitute, to the Divine mercy? For I do not call it\nhumility, if we suppose that we have any thing left. And hitherto they\nhave taught a pernicious hypocrisy, who have connected these two\nmaxims\u2014that we should entertain humble thoughts of ourselves before God,\nand that we should attach some dignity to our own righteousness. For if we\naddress to God a confession which is contrary to our real sentiments, we\nare guilty of telling him an impudent falsehood; but we cannot think of\nourselves as we ought to think, without utterly despising every thing that\nmay be supposed an excellence in us. When we hear, therefore, from the\nPsalmist, that \u201cGod will save the afflicted people, but will bring down\nhigh looks,\u201d(1983) let us consider, first, that there is no way of\nsalvation till we have laid aside all pride, and attained sincere\nhumility; secondly, that this humility is not a species of modesty,\nconsisting in conceding to God a small portion of what we might justly\nclaim, as they are called humble among men, who neither haughtily exalt\nthemselves nor behave with insolence to others, while they nevertheless\nentertain some consciousness of excellence: this humility is the unfeigned\nsubmission of a mind overwhelmed with a weighty sense of its own misery\nand poverty; for such is the uniform description of it in the word of God.\nWhen the Lord speaks thus in Zephaniah, \u201cI will take away out of the midst\nof thee them that rejoice in thy pride; I will also leave in the midst of\nthee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the\nLord;\u201d(1984) does he not clearly show who are truly humble? even such as\nare afflicted with a knowledge of their own poverty. On the contrary, he\ndescribes the proud as persons \u201crejoicing,\u201d because this is the usual\nconsequence of prosperity. But to the humble, whom he intends to save, he\nleaves nothing but that \u201cthey trust in the name of the Lord.\u201d Thus also in\nIsaiah, \u201cTo this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a\ncontrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.\u201d(1985) Again: \u201cThus saith the\nhigh and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell\nin the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble\nspirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the\ncontrite ones.\u201d(1986) By the contrition so frequently mentioned, we must\nunderstand a wounded heart, which prevents a man from rising when humbled\nin the dust. With such contrition must our heart be wounded, if we desire,\naccording to the declaration of the Lord, to be exalted with the humble.\nIf this be not the case, we shall be abased by the powerful hand of God to\nour shame and disgrace.(1987)\n\nVII. And, not content with mere precepts, our excellent Master, in a\nparable, as in a picture, has presented us with an example of genuine\nhumility. For he introduces a publican, who, \u201cstanding afar off, would not\nlift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast,\nsaying, God be merciful to me a sinner.\u201d(1988) We must not conclude these\ncircumstances\u2014his not presuming to look upwards, standing afar off,\nsmiting upon his breast, and confessing himself a sinner\u2014to be marks of\nfeigned modesty; we may be certain that they were sincere evidences of the\ndisposition of his heart. To him our Lord opposes a Pharisee, who said,\n\u201cGod, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust,\nadulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give\ntithes of all that I possess.\u201d He openly confesses the righteousness which\nhe has, to be the gift of God; but because he confides in his being\nrighteous, he departs from the presence of God unacceptable and hateful to\nhim. The publican, acknowledging his iniquity, is justified. Hence we may\nsee how very pleasing our humiliation is in the sight of God; so that the\nheart is not open for the reception of his mercy unless it be divested of\nall idea of its own dignity. When this notion has occupied the mind, it\nprecludes the admission of Divine mercy. That no one might have any doubt\nof this, Christ was sent by his Father into the world with a commission,\n\u201cto preach good tidings unto the meek; to bind up the broken\u2010hearted; to\nproclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them\nthat are bound; to comfort all that mourn; to give unto them beauty for\nashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit\nof heaviness.\u201d(1989) In pursuance of this commission, he invites to a\nparticipation of his benefits none but those who \u201clabour and are heavy\nladen.\u201d(1990) And in another place he says, \u201cI am not come to call the\nrighteous, but sinners to repentance.\u201d(1991)\n\nVIII. Therefore, if we would obey the call of Christ, let us dismiss all\narrogance and carelessness from our minds. The former arises from a\nfoolish persuasion of our own righteousness, when a man supposes himself\nto be possessed of any thing, the merit of which can recommend him to God;\nthe latter may exist without any consideration of works. For multitudes of\nsinners, inebriated with criminal pleasures, and forgetful of the Divine\njudgment, are in a state, as it were, of lethargic insensibility, so that\nthey never aspire after the mercy which is offered to them. But it is\nequally necessary for us to shake off such stupidity, and to reject all\nconfidence in ourselves, in order that, being freed from every\nincumbrance, we may hasten to Christ, all destitute and hungry, to be\nfilled with his blessings. For we shall never have sufficient confidence\nin him, unless we entirely lose all confidence in ourselves; we shall\nnever find sufficient encouragement in him, unless we are previously\ndejected in ourselves; we shall never enjoy sufficient consolation in him,\nunless we are utterly disconsolate in ourselves. We are prepared,\ntherefore, to seek and obtain the grace of God, discarding at the same\ntime all confidence in ourselves, and relying solely on the assurance of\nhis mercy, \u201cwhen,\u201d as Augustine says, \u201cforgetting our own merits, we\nembrace the free gifts of Christ; because, if he sought merits in us, we\nshould not come to his free gifts.\u201d With him Bernard fully agrees, when he\ncompares proud men, that arrogate ever so little to their own merits, to\nunfaithful servants, because they unjustly claim the praise of the grace\nwhich passes through them; just as though a wall should say that it\nproduces the sunbeams which it receives through a window. But not to dwell\nany longer on this, we may lay it down as a brief, but general and certain\nmaxim, that he is prepared for a participation of the benefits of Divine\nmercy, who has wholly divested himself, I will not say of his\nrighteousness, which is a mere nullity, but of the vain and airy phantom\nof righteousness; for as far as any man is satisfied with himself, so far\nhe raises an impediment to the exercise of the grace of God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XIII. Two Things Necessary To Be Observed In Gratuitous\nJustification.\n\n\nHere are two things to which we must always be particularly attentive; to\nmaintain the glory of the Lord unimpaired and undiminished, and to\npreserve in our own consciences a placid composure and serene tranquillity\nwith regard to the Divine judgment. We see how frequently and solicitously\nthe Scripture exhorts us to render ascriptions of praise to God alone,\nwhen it treats of justification. And, indeed, the apostle assures us that\nthe design of the Lord in conferring righteousness upon us in Christ, is\nto manifest his own righteousness. The nature of that manifestation he\nimmediately subjoins: it is, \u201cthat he might be just, and the justifier of\nhim which believeth in Jesus.\u201d(1992) The righteousness of God, we see, is\nnot sufficiently illustrious, unless he alone be esteemed righteous, and\ncommunicate the grace of justification to the unworthy. For this reason it\nis his will \u201cthat every mouth be stopped, and all the world become guilty\nbefore him;\u201d(1993) because, as long as man has any thing to allege in his\nown defence, it detracts something from the glory of God. Thus in Ezekiel\nhe teaches us how greatly we glorify his name by an acknowledgment of our\niniquity: \u201cYe shall remember your ways, (saith he,) and all your doings,\nwherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own\nsight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I\nam the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name\u2019s sake, not\naccording to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt\ndoings.\u201d(1994) If these things are contained in the true knowledge of God,\nthat, humbled with a consciousness of our iniquity, we should consider him\nas indulging us with blessings of which we are unworthy, why do we\nattempt, to our own serious injury, to pilfer the smallest particle of the\npraise due to his gratuitous goodness? Thus also when Jeremiah proclaims,\n\u201cLet not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man\nglory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him\nthat glorieth glory in the Lord;\u201d(1995) does he not suggest that the glory\nof God sustains some diminution, if any man glory in himself? To this use\nthese words are clearly applied by Paul, when he states, that all the\nbranches of our salvation are deposited with Christ, that we may not glory\nexcept in the Lord.(1996) For he intimates, that they who suppose\nthemselves to have even the least ground for glorying in themselves, are\nguilty of rebelling against God, and obscuring his glory.\n\nII. The truth, then, is, that we never truly glory in him, till we have\nentirely renounced all glory of our own. On the converse, this may be\nadmitted as an axiom universally true, that they who glory in themselves,\nglory in opposition to God. For Paul is of opinion that the world is not\n\u201csubject to the judgment of God,\u201d till men are deprived of all foundation\nfor glorying.(1997) Therefore Isaiah, when he announces, that \u201cin the Lord\nshall all the seed of Israel be justified,\u201d adds also, \u201cand shall glory;\u201d\nas though he had said, that the end of God in justifying the elect was,\nthat they might glory in himself, and in no other. But how we should glory\nin the Lord, he had stated in the preceding verse: \u201cSurely, shall one say,\nin the Lord have I righteousness and strength.\u201d Let us observe, that what\nis required is not a simple confession, but a confession confirmed by an\noath; that we may not suppose any fictitious pretence of humility to be\nsufficient.(1998) Here let no one plead that he does not glory at all,\nwhen without arrogance he recognizes his own righteousness; for such an\nopinion cannot exist without generating confidence, nor confidence without\nbeing attended with glorying. Let us remember, therefore, in the whole\ncontroversy concerning righteousness, that this end must be kept in view,\nthat all the praise of it may remain perfect and undiminished with the\nLord; because, according to the apostle\u2019s testimony, he has bestowed his\ngrace on us in order \u201cto declare his righteousness; that he might be just,\nand the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.\u201d(1999) Wherefore, in\nanother place, after having declared that the Lord has conferred salvation\non us in order to display \u201cthe praise of the glory of his grace,\u201d(2000)\nrepeating, as it were, the same sentiment, he adds, \u201cBy grace are ye saved\nthrough faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of\nworks, lest any man should boast.\u201d(2001) And when Peter admonishes us that\nwe are called to the hope of salvation, \u201cthat we should show forth the\npraises (or virtues) of him who hath called us out of darkness into his\nmarvellous light,\u201d(2002) he evidently means that the praises of God alone\nshould resound in the ears of believers, so as to impose total silence on\nall the presumption of the flesh. The conclusion of the whole is, that man\ncannot without sacrilege arrogate to himself the least particle of\nrighteousness, because it is so much detracted and diminished from the\nglory of the righteousness of God.\n\nIII. Now, if we inquire by what means the conscience can obtain peace\nbefore God, we shall find no other than our reception of gratuitous\nrighteousness from his free gift. Let us always remember the inquiry of\nSolomon\u2014\u201cWho can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my\nsin?\u201d(2003) It is certain that there is no man who is not covered with\ninfinite pollution. Let a man of the most perfect character, then, retire\ninto his own conscience, and enter into a scrutiny of his actions, and\nwhat will be the result? Will he feel a high degree of satisfaction, as\nthough there were the most entire agreement between God and him? or will\nhe not rather be lacerated with terrible agonies, on perceiving in himself\nsuch ample cause for condemnation, if he be judged according to his works?\nIf the conscience reflect on God, it must either enjoy a solid peace with\nhis judgment, or be surrounded with the terrors of hell. We gain nothing,\ntherefore, in our discussions of this point, unless we establish a\nrighteousness, the stability of which will support our souls under the\nscrutiny of the Divine judgment. When our souls shall possess what will\nenable them to appear with boldness in the presence of God, and to await\nand receive his judgment without any fear, then, and not before, we may be\nassured that we have found a righteousness which truly deserves the name.\nIt is not without reason, therefore, that this subject is so largely\ninsisted on by the apostle, whose words I prefer to my own: \u201cFor if they\nwhich are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made\nof none effect.\u201d(2004) He first infers, that faith is annulled and\nsuperseded, if the promise of righteousness respect the merit of our\nworks, or depend on our observance of the law. For no man could ever\nsecurely rely on it, since he never would be able to determine with\ncertainty for himself that he had fulfilled the law, as in fact no man\never does completely satisfy it by any works of his own. Not to seek far\nfor testimonies of this fact, every individual may be his own witness of\nit, who will enter unprejudiced into an examination of himself. And hence\nit appears in what deep and dark recesses hypocrisy buries the minds of\nmen, while they indulge themselves in such great security, and hesitate\nnot to oppose their self\u2010adulation to the judgment of God, as though they\nwould stop the proceedings of his tribunal. But believers, who sincerely\nexamine themselves, are troubled and distressed with a solicitude of a\nvery different nature. The minds of men universally, therefore, ought to\nfeel first hesitation, and then despair, while considering, every one for\nhimself, the magnitude of the debt with which they are still oppressed,\nand their immense distance from the conditions prescribed to them. Behold\ntheir confidence already broken and extinguished; for to confide is not to\nfluctuate, to vary, to be hurried hither and thither, to hesitate, to be\nkept in suspense, to stagger, and finally to despair; but it is, to\nstrengthen the mind with content, certainty, and solid security, and to\nhave somewhat upon which to stand and to rest.\n\nIV. He adds likewise another consideration, that the promise would be void\nand of none effect. For if the fulfilment of it depend on our merit, when\nshall we have made such a progress as to deserve the favour of God?\nBesides, this second argument is a consequence of the former, since the\npromise will be fulfilled to those alone who shall exercise faith in it.\nTherefore, if faith be wanting, the promise will retain no force.\n\u201cTherefore the inheritance is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the\nend the promise might be sure to all the seed.\u201d(2005) For it is abundantly\nconfirmed, when it depends solely on the Divine mercy; because mercy and\ntruth are connected by an indissoluble bond, and whatever God mercifully\npromises, he also faithfully performs. Thus David, before he implores\nsalvation for himself according to the word of God, first represents it as\noriginating in his mercy: \u201cAccording to thy word unto thy servant, let thy\ntender mercies come unto me, that I may live.\u201d(2006) And for this there is\nsufficient reason, since God has no other inducement to promise than what\narises from his mere mercy. Here, then, we must place, and, as it were,\ndeeply fix, all our hopes, without regarding our own works, or seeking any\nassistance from them. Nor must it be supposed that we are advancing a new\ndoctrine, for the same conduct is recommended by Augustine. \u201cChrist,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cwill reign in his servants for ever. God has promised this, God has\nsaid it; if that be insufficient, God has sworn it. Since the promise,\ntherefore, is established, not according to our merits, but according to\nhis mercy, no man ought to speak with anxiety of that which he cannot\ndoubt.\u201d Bernard also says, \u201cThe disciples of Christ asked, Who can be\nsaved? He replied, With men this is impossible, but not with God. This is\nall our confidence, this our only consolation, this the whole foundation\nof our hope. But certain of the possibility, what think we of his will?\nWho knows whether he deserve love or hatred?(2007) Who has known the mind\nof the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?(2008) Here, now, we evidently\nneed faith to help us, and his truth to assist us; that what is concealed\nfrom us in the heart of the Father, may be revealed by the Spirit, and\nthat the testimony of the Spirit may persuade our hearts that we are sons\nof God; that he may persuade us by calling and justifying us freely by\nfaith; in which there is, as it were, an intermediate passage from eternal\npredestination to future glory.\u201d Let us draw the following brief\nconclusion: The Scripture declares that the promises of God have no\nefficacy, unless they be embraced by the conscience with a steady\nconfidence; and whenever there is any doubt or uncertainty, it pronounces\nthem to be made void. Again, it asserts that they have no stability if\nthey depend on our works. Either, therefore, we must be for ever destitute\nof righteousness, or our works must not come into consideration, but the\nground must be occupied by faith alone, whose nature it is to open the\nears and shut the eyes; that is, to be intent only on the promise, and to\navert the thoughts from all human dignity or merit. Thus is accomplished\nthat remarkable prophecy of Zechariah: \u201cI will remove the iniquity of that\nland in one day. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every\nman his neighbour under the vine and under the fig\u2010tree;\u201d(2009) in which\nthe prophet suggests that believers enjoy no true peace till after they\nhave obtained the remission of their sins. For this analogy must be\nobserved in the prophets, that when they treat of the kingdom of Christ,\nthey exhibit the external bounties of God as figures of spiritual\nblessings. Wherefore also Christ is denominated \u201cthe Prince of peace,\u201d and\n\u201cour Peace;\u201d(2010) because he calms all the agitations of the conscience.\nIf we inquire, by what means; we must come to the sacrifice by which God\nis appeased. For no man will ever lose his fears who shall not be assured\nthat God is propitiated solely by that atonement which Christ has made by\nsustaining his wrath. In short, we must seek for peace only in the terrors\nof Christ our Redeemer.\n\nV. But why do I use such an obscure testimony? Paul invariably denies that\npeace or tranquillity can be enjoyed in the conscience, without a\ncertainty that we are justified by faith.(2011) And he also declares\nwhence that certainty proceeds; it is \u201cbecause the love of God is shed\nabroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost;\u201d(2012) as though he had said that\nour consciences can never be satisfied without a certain persuasion of our\nacceptance with God. Hence he exclaims in the name of all believers, \u201cWho\nshall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ?\u201d(2013) For till\nwe have reached that port of safety, we shall tremble with alarm at every\nslightest breeze; but while God shall manifest himself as our Shepherd, we\nshall fear no evil even in the valley of the shadow of death.(2014)\nWhoever they are, therefore, who pretend that we are justified by faith,\nbecause, being regenerated, we are righteous by living a spiritual life,\nthey have never tasted the sweetness of grace, so as to have confidence\nthat God would be propitious to them. Whence also it follows, that they\nknow no more of the method of praying aright, than the Turks or any other\nprofane nations. For according to the testimony of Paul, faith is not\ngenuine unless it dictate and suggest that most delightful name of Father,\nand unless it open our mouth freely to cry, \u201cAbba, Father;\u201d(2015) which he\nin another place expresses still more clearly: \u201cIn Christ we have boldness\nand access with confidence by the faith of him.\u201d(2016) This certainly\narises not from the gift of regeneration; which, being always imperfect in\nthe present state, contains in itself abundant occasion of doubting.\nWherefore it is necessary to come to this remedy; that believers should\nconclude that they cannot hope for an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven\non any other foundation, but because, being ingrafted into the body of\nChrist, they are gratuitously accounted righteous. For with respect to\njustification, faith is a thing merely passive, bringing nothing of our\nown to conciliate the favour of God, but receiving what we need from\nChrist.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 It is not uncommon, among persons of a certain class, to represent\n      the leading principles of Calvin as unfavourable to practical\n      religion, and to that kind of preaching which is adapted to affect\n      the hearts and consciences of the hearers. A reference to the most\n      able and intelligent theologians and preachers who have held those\n      principles, and upon whom they may reasonably be concluded to have\n      exerted their genuine and fullest influence, will amply evince the\n      inaccuracy of this representation. Of the excellent divine quoted\n      above, King Charles I. was wont to say, that \u201che carried his ears to\n      hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Saunderson.\u201d\n\n    2 Prov. xxix. 18.\n\n    3 Dan. ii. 34. Isaiah xi. 4. Psalm ii. 9.\n\n    4 Rom. xii. 6.\n\n    5 Jer. ii. 13.\n\n    6 Rom. viii. 32.\n\n    7 1 Tim. iv. 10.\n\n    8 John xvii. 3.\n\n    9 Rom. iv. 25. 1 Cor. xv. 3, 17.\n\n   10 Isaiah i. 3.\n\n   11 Mark xvi. 20.\n\n   12 Acts xiv. 3.\n\n   13 Heb. ii. 3, 4.\n\n   14 John vii. 18. viii. 50.\n\n   15 In Joan. tract. 13.\n\n   16 Matt. xxiv. 24.\n\n   17 2 Thess. ii. 9.\n\n   18 2 Cor. xi. 14.\n\n   19 Hierom. in pr\u00e6f. Jerem.\n\n   20 2 Thess. ii. 10, 11.\n\n   21 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23.\n\n   22 Prov. xxii. 28.\n\n   23 Psalm xlv. 10.\n\n   24 Acat. in lib. 11. cap. 16. Trip. Hist. Amb. lib. 2. de Off. c. 28.\n\n   25 Spiridion. Trip. Hist. lib. 1. c. 10.\n\n   26 Trip. Hist. lib. 8. c. 1. August. de Opere Mon. c. 17.\n\n   27 Epiph. Epist. ab. Hier. vers. Con. Eliber. c. 36.\n\n   28 Amb. de Abra. lib. 1. c. 7.\n\n   29 Gelas. Pap. in Conc. Rom.\n\n   30 Chrys. in 1 Cap. Ephes. Calix. Papa de Cons. dist. 2.\n\n   31 Gelas. can. Comperimus de Cons. dist. 2. Cypr. Epist. 2. lib. 1, de\n      Laps.\n\n   32 August. lib. 2. de Pec. Mer. cap. ult.\n\n   33 Apollon. de quo Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 11, 12.\n\n   34 Paphnut. Trip. Hist. lib. 2. c. 14. Cypr. Epist. 2. lib. 2.\n\n   35 Aug. cap. 2. contr. Cresc. Grammatic.\n\n   36 Isaiah viii. 12, 13.\n\n   37 Epist. 3. lib. 2. et in Epist. ad Julian. de H\u00e6ret. baptiz.\n\n   38 Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\n   39 1 Kings xix. 14, 18.\n\n   40 Contr. Auxent.\n\n   41 2 Tim. ii. 19.\n\n   42 Exod. xxxii. 4.\n\n   43 1 Kings xxii. 6, 11\u201023.\n\n   44 Jer. xviii. 18.\n\n   45 Jer. iv. 9.\n\n   46 Matt. xxvi. 3, 4.\n\n   47 1 Kings xviii. 17.\n\n   48 Luke xxiii. 2, 5.\n\n   49 Acts xvii. 6. xxiv. 5.\n\n   50 2 Pet. iii. 16.\n\n   51 Rom. v. 20. vi. 1, 14, 15.\n\n   52 Phil. i. 15, 16.\n\n   53 Phil. ii. 21.\n\n   54 2 Pet. ii. 22.\n\n   55 1 Pet. ii. 8.\n\n   56 Luke ii. 34.\n\n   57 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.\n\n   58 Rom. i. 16.\n\n   59 1 Cor. xiv. 33.\n\n   60 1 John iii. 8. Gal. ii. 17.\n\n   61 Acts xvii. 2.\n\n   62 Judg. xiii. 22.\n\n   63 Gen. xviii. 27.\n\n   64 1 Kings xix. 13.\n\n   65 Isaiah vi. 2; xxiv. 23.\n\n   66 Rom. i. 20.\n\n   67 Cicer. de Natur. Deor. lib. i. Lactant. Inst. lib. iii. cap. 10.\n\n   68 Cicer. de Nat. Deor. lib. 1 & 3. Valer. Maxim. lib. 1, cap. 1.\n\n   69 In Ph\u00e6d. & The\u00e6t.\n\n   70 Rom. i. 22.\n\n   71 Psalm xiv. 1.\n\n   72 Isaiah vi. 9.\n\n   73 Psalm xxxvi. 1.\n\n   74 Psalm x. 11.\n\n   75 2 Tim. ii. 13.\n\n   76 Gal. iv. 8.\n\n   77 Eph. ii. 12.\n\n   78 Statii Thebaid. lib. 3.\n\n   79 Psalm civ. 2.\n\n   80 Heb. xi. 3.\n\n   81 Psalm xix. 1, 3.\n\n   82 Rom. i. 20.\n\n   83 Macrob. lib. 2. de Somn. Scip. c. 12. Boet. de Defin. Arist. lib. 1.\n      de Hist. Animal.\n\n   84 Acts xvii. 27.\n\n   85 Psalm viii. 2, 4.\n\n   86 Acts xvii. 28.\n\n   87 \u00c6neid vi. Pitt\u2019s Translation.\n\n   88 Georg. iv. Warton\u2019s Translation.\n\n   89 De Rerum Natur. lib. 1.\n\n   90 Psalm cxlv. 9.\n\n   91 Psalm cvii.\n\n   92 Psalm cvii. 43.\n\n   93 Psalm cxiii. 7.\n\n   94 1 Cor. iii. 19.\n\n   95 Acts xvii. 27.\n\n   96 Psalm cxlv. 6.\n\n   97 Aug. in Psal. cxliv.\n\n   98 De Civit. Dei. lib. 1, cap. 8.\n\n   99 Psalm xcii. 6.\n\n  100 Psalm xl. 12.\n\n  101 Plut. de Philosoph. placitis, lib. 1. Plato in Tim\u00e6o. Cic. lib. 1,\n      de Natur. Deor.\n\n  102 Lactant. Institut. div.\n\n  103 Seneca, lib. 4, de benef., &c.\n\n  104 Plutarch. lib. 1, de Isid. & Osirid. Cic. lib. 1, de Nat. Deor.\n\n  105 Cic. lib. de Nat. Deor.\n\n  106 Ephes. ii. 12.\n\n  107 Rom. i. 21.\n\n  108 Hab. ii. 18, 20.\n\n  109 John iv. 22.\n\n  110 1 Cor. ii. 8.\n\n  111 Xenoph. de Dict. et Fact. Socrat. lib. 1. Cic. de Legib. lib. 2.\n\n  112 Heb. xi. 3.\n\n  113 Rom. i. 19.\n\n  114 Rom. i. 20.\n\n  115 Acts xvii. 27.\n\n  116 Acts xiv. 16, 17.\n\n  117 Rom. x. 4.\n\n  118 1 Tim. vi. 16.\n\n  119 Ps. xciii. xcvi., &c.\n\n  120 Ps. xix. 1, &c.\n\n  121 Ps. xciii. 5.\n\n  122 John iv. 22.\n\n  123 Eph. ii. 20.\n\n  124 Contr. Epist. Fundam. cap. 5.\n\n  125 Isaiah lix. 21.\n\n  126 Isaiah xliii. 10.\n\n  127 Isaiah liv. 13.\n\n  128 Deut. xxx. Rom. x.\n\n  129 Isaiah liii. 1.\n\n  130 1 Cor. ii. 4.\n\n  131 Gen. xlix. 5.\n\n  132 Num. xii. 1.\n\n  133 Exod. xxiv. 18; xxxiv. 29; xix. 16; xl. 34. Num. xvi. 24, &c.; xx.\n      11; xi. 9.\n\n  134 Lev. xx. 6.\n\n  135 Exod. xvi. 7.\n\n  136 Gen. xlix. 10.\n\n  137 Deut. xxxii.\n\n  138 Isaiah xxxix. 6.\n\n  139 Isaiah xlv. 1.\n\n  140 Jer. xxv. 11, 12.\n\n  141 Isaiah xlii. 9.\n\n  142 2 Kings xxii. 8.\n\n  143 Deut. xvii. 18.\n\n  144 Lib. de Util. Credend.\n\n  145 Isaiah lix. 21.\n\n  146 1 Tim. iv. 13.\n\n  147 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.\n\n  148 John xvi. 13.\n\n  149 2 Pet. i. 19.\n\n  150 2 Cor. iii. 6.\n\n  151 Psalm xix. 7.\n\n  152 2 Cor. iii. 8.\n\n  153 Luke xxiv. 27, &c.\n\n  154 1 Thess. v. 19.\n\n  155 Exod. xxxiv. 6.\n\n  156 Psalm cxlv.\n\n  157 Jer. ix. 24.\n\n  158 Lib. de Idolol. Vid. Aug. Epist. 43 et 44.\n\n  159 Hab. ii. 20.\n\n  160 Maximus Tyrius, Plat. Serm. 38.\n\n  161 Deut. iv. 15.\n\n  162 Isaiah xl. 18; xli. 7, 29; xlvi. 5, &c.\n\n  163 Acts xvii. 29.\n\n  164 Exod. xxxiii. 11.\n\n  165 Deut. iv. 11.\n\n  166 Exod. xxxiii. 20.\n\n  167 Matt. iii. 16.\n\n  168 Exod. xxv. 17, 18, &c.\n\n  169 Isaiah vi. 2.\n\n  170 Psalm cxxxv. 15.\n\n  171 Hor. Sat. lib. 1, 8.\n\n  172 Isaiah xliv. 9\u201020.\n\n  173 Isaiah xl. 21.\n\n  174 Psalm cxv. 8.\n\n  175 Jer. x. 8.\n\n  176 Hab. ii. 18.\n\n  177 Gal. iii. 1.\n\n  178 Wisdom xiv. 15.\n\n  179 Gen. xxxi. 19.\n\n  180 Joshua xxiv. 2.\n\n  181 Exod. xxxii. 1.\n\n  182 Exod. xxxii. 4\u20106.\n\n  183 In Psalm cxiii.\n\n  184 In Psalm cxiii.\n\n  185 Epist. 49. De Civ. Dei. lib. iv. cap. 31.\n\n  186 Gal. iv. 8.\n\n  187 Matt. iv. 10.\n\n  188 Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9.\n\n  189 Acts x. 25.\n\n  190 Zech. xiv. 9.\n\n  191 Seneca, Pr\u00e6f. lib. 1. Qu\u00e6st. Nat.\n\n  192 John i. 1.\n\n  193 1 Pet. i. 11.\n\n  194 Heb. i. 2, 3.\n\n  195 John v. 17.\n\n  196 James i. 17.\n\n  197 Gen. i. 3.\n\n  198 John xvii. 5.\n\n  199 John i. 2.\n\n  200 Exod. vii. 1.\n\n  201 Isaiah ix. 6.\n\n  202 Jer. xxiii. 6.\n\n  203 Isaiah xlii. 8.\n\n  204 Ezek. xlviii. 35.\n\n  205 Exod. xvii. 15.\n\n  206 Jer. xxxiii. 16.\n\n  207 Judges xiii. 22, 23.\n\n  208 Hosea xii. 5.\n\n  209 Gen. xxxii. 29, 30.\n\n  210 Isaiah xxv. 9.\n\n  211 Mal. iii. 1.\n\n  212 Isaiah viii. 14.\n\n  213 Rom ix. 33.\n\n  214 Rom. xiv. 10, 11.\n\n  215 Isaiah xlv. 23.\n\n  216 Eph. iv. 8. Psalm lxviii. 18.\n\n  217 John xii. 41. Isaiah vi. 1.\n\n  218 Heb. i. 6, 10.\n\n  219 John i. 1, 14.\n\n  220 2 Cor. v. 10.\n\n  221 Rom ix. 5.\n\n  222 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n  223 Philip. ii. 6.\n\n  224 1 John v. 20.\n\n  225 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.\n\n  226 John xx. 28.\n\n  227 John v. 18.\n\n  228 Heb. i. 3.\n\n  229 Isaiah xliii. 25.\n\n  230 Matt. ix. 6.\n\n  231 Matt. x. 8. Mark iii. 15.\n\n  232 Acts iii. 6.\n\n  233 John v. 36; x. 37.\n\n  234 Matt. xix. 17.\n\n  235 John xiv. 1.\n\n  236 Isaiah xxviii. 16; xi. 10. Rom. x. 11; xv. 12.\n\n  237 John vi. 47.\n\n  238 Joel ii. 32.\n\n  239 Prov. xviii. 10.\n\n  240 Acts vii. 59.\n\n  241 Acts ix. 13, 14.\n\n  242 1 Cor. ii. 2.\n\n  243 Jer. ix. 24.\n\n  244 Gen. i. 2.\n\n  245 Isaiah xlviii. 16.\n\n  246 1 Cor. ii. 10, 16.\n\n  247 1 Cor. xii. 8.\n\n  248 Exod. iv. 11.\n\n  249 1 Cor. xii. 4, &c.\n\n  250 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 16.\n\n  251 Acts v. 3, 4.\n\n  252 Isaiah vi. 9.\n\n  253 Acts xxviii. 25.\n\n  254 Isaiah lxiii. 10.\n\n  255 Matt. xii. 31. Mark iii. 29. Luke xii. 10.\n\n  256 Psalm xxxiii. 6.\n\n  257 Ephes. iv. 5.\n\n  258 1 Cor. xii. 11.\n\n  259 John v. 32; viii. 16, 18.\n\n  260 John i. 18.\n\n  261 John xv. 26.\n\n  262 John xiv. 16.\n\n  263 1 Pet. i. 11.\n\n  264 John xiv. 10, 11.\n\n  265 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9.\n\n  266 Joel ii. 28\u201032. Acts ii. 16\u201021.\n\n  267 Gen. i. 2.\n\n  268 Isaiah vi. 1.\n\n  269 John xii. 41.\n\n  270 Isaiah viii. 14.\n\n  271 Rom. ix. 33.\n\n  272 Isaiah xlv. 23.\n\n  273 Rom. xiv. 11.\n\n  274 Heb. i. 6, 10. Psalm cii. 25; xcvii. 7.\n\n  275 Isaiah xliv. 6.\n\n  276 Jer. x. 11.\n\n  277 Exod. iii. 14.\n\n  278 Matt. xix. 17.\n\n  279 1 Tim. i. 17.\n\n  280 Phil. ii. 10.\n\n  281 Phil. ii. 6, 7.\n\n  282 Isaiah xxv. 9.\n\n  283 Gen. i. 26.\n\n  284 John iv. 24.\n\n  285 John xvii. 3.\n\n  286 Heb. i. 10; ii. 9.\n\n  287 John xiv. 28.\n\n  288 1 Cor. xv. 24.\n\n  289 1 John v. 20.\n\n  290 Isaiah xl. 21.\n\n  291 Psalm ciii. 20.\n\n  292 Gen. ii. 1.\n\n  293 2 Cor. xii. 1, &c.\n\n  294 Daniel vii. 10.\n\n  295 Ephes. i. 21.\n\n  296 Col. i. 16.\n\n  297 Gen. xviii. 2; xxxii. 1, 28. Josh. v. 13. Judges vi. 11; xiii. 3,\n      22.\n\n  298 Psalm lxxxii. 6.\n\n  299 Psalm xci. 11, 12.\n\n  300 Psalm xxxiv. 7.\n\n  301 Gen. xvi. 9.\n\n  302 Gen. xxiv. 7.\n\n  303 Gen. xlviii. 16.\n\n  304 Exod. xiv. 19; xxiii. 20.\n\n  305 Judges ii. 1; vi. 11; xiii. 3, &c.\n\n  306 Matt. iv. 11. Luke xxii. 43. Matt. xxviii. 5. Luke xxiv. 4, 5. Acts\n      i. 10.\n\n  307 2 Kings xix. 35. Isaiah xxxvii. 36.\n\n  308 Daniel x. 13, 20; xii. 1.\n\n  309 Matt. xviii. 10.\n\n  310 Luke xv. 7.\n\n  311 Luke xvi. 22.\n\n  312 2 Kings vi. 17.\n\n  313 Acts xii. 15.\n\n  314 Daniel xii. 1. Jude, ver. 9.\n\n  315 1 Thess. iv. 16.\n\n  316 Daniel x. 13, 21; viii. 16; ix. 21. Luke i. 19, 26. Tob. iii. 17; v.\n      5.\n\n  317 Matt. xxvi. 53.\n\n  318 Daniel vii. 10.\n\n  319 Psalm xxxiv. 7.\n\n  320 Luke xv. 10; iv. 10; xvi. 22. Psalm xci. 12. Matt. iv. 6; xviii. 10.\n\n  321 Acts vii. 53. Gal. iii. 19.\n\n  322 Matt. xxii. 30; xxiv. 36; xxv. 31.  Luke ix. 26.\n\n  323 1 Tim. v. 21.\n\n  324 Heb. i. 4; ii. 16.\n\n  325 Heb. xii. 22, 23.\n\n  326 1 Peter i. 12.\n\n  327 Heb. i. 6.\n\n  328 Mal. iii. 1.\n\n  329 Col. i. 16, 20.\n\n  330 Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9.\n\n  331 2 Kings vi. 15, 16, 17.\n\n  332 Gen. xxviii. 12.\n\n  333 John i. 51.\n\n  334 Gen. xxiv. 7, 12, 27, 52.\n\n  335 2 Cor. iv. 4. John xii. 31.\n\n  336 Matt. xii. 29. Luke xi. 21.\n\n  337 Ephes. ii. 2.\n\n  338 1 Peter v. 8, 9.\n\n  339 Ephes. vi. 12, &c.\n\n  340 Mark xvi. 9.\n\n  341 Matt. xii. 43\u201045.\n\n  342 Luke viii. 30.\n\n  343 Matt. xxv. 41.\n\n  344 Matt. xiii. 25, 28.\n\n  345 John viii. 44.\n\n  346 John viii. 44.\n\n  347 2 Peter ii. 4. Jude, ver. 6.\n\n  348 1 Tim. v. 21.\n\n  349 Job i. 6; ii. 1.\n\n  350 1 Kings xxii. 20, &c.\n\n  351 1 Sam. xvi. 14; xviii. 10.\n\n  352 Psalm lxxviii. 49.\n\n  353 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11.\n\n  354 Ephes. iv. 27.\n\n  355 1 Peter v. 8.\n\n  356 2 Cor. xii. 7.\n\n  357 Gen. iii. 15.\n\n  358 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. 1 Chron. xxi. 1.\n\n  359 2 Tim. ii. 26.\n\n  360 Rom. xvi. 20.\n\n  361 John xiv. 30.\n\n  362 Luke x. 18.\n\n  363 Luke xi. 21.\n\n  364 John xii. 31.\n\n  365 2 Cor. iv. 4.\n\n  366 Eph. ii. 2.\n\n  367 Rom. ix. 22.\n\n  368 John viii. 44.\n\n  369 1 John iii. 10.\n\n  370 Matt. xii. 43. Jude 6.\n\n  371 John viii. 44. 1 John iii. 10.\n\n  372 Jude 9.\n\n  373 Job i. 6; ii. 1.\n\n  374 Matt. viii. 29.\n\n  375 Matt. xxv. 41.\n\n  376 2 Peter ii. 4.\n\n  377 Gen. i. 28; ix. 2.\n\n  378 Gen. ii. 7; iii. 19, 23.\n\n  379 Eccles. xii. 7.\n\n  380 Luke xxiii. 46.\n\n  381 Acts vii. 59.\n\n  382 Job iv. 19.\n\n  383 2 Cor. v. 4.\n\n  384 2 Peter i. 13, 14.\n\n  385 2 Cor. v. 10.\n\n  386 2 Cor. vii. 1.\n\n  387 1 Peter ii. 25.\n\n  388 1 Peter i. 9, 22; ii. 11.\n\n  389 Heb. xiii. 17.\n\n  390 2 Cor. i. 23.\n\n  391 Matt. x. 28. Luke xii. 4, 5.\n\n  392 Heb. xii. 9.\n\n  393 Luke xvi. 22.\n\n  394 2 Cor. v. 6, 8.\n\n  395 Acts xxiii. 8.\n\n  396 Gen. i. 27.\n\n  397 Ovid\u2019s Metam. lib. 1. Dryden\u2019s Translation.\n\n  398 Gen. i. 26.\n\n  399 Matt. xxii. 30.\n\n  400 1 Cor. xv. 45.\n\n  401 Col. iii. 10.\n\n  402 Eph. iv. 24.\n\n  403 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n\n  404 1 Cor. xi. 7.\n\n  405 John i. 4.\n\n  406 Gen. ii. 7.\n\n  407 Acts xvii. 28.\n\n  408 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n\n  409 Hebrews xi. 3.\n\n  410 Matt. vi. 26; x. 29.\n\n  411 Psalm xxxiii. 6.\n\n  412 Psalm xxxiii. 13.\n\n  413 Psalm civ. 27\u201030.\n\n  414 Acts xvii. 28.\n\n  415 Matt. x. 30.\n\n  416 Joshua x. 13.\n\n  417 2 Kings xx. 11.\n\n  418 Psalm cxv. 3.\n\n  419 Psalm viii. 2.\n\n  420 Jer. x. 2.\n\n  421 Gen. xxii. 8.\n\n  422 John v. 17.\n\n  423 Acts xvii. 28.\n\n  424 Heb. i. 3.\n\n  425 Psalm cxlvii. 9.\n\n  426 Matt. x. 29.\n\n  427 Psalm cxiii. 5, 6.\n\n  428 Jer. x. 23.\n\n  429 Prov. xx. 24.\n\n  430 Prov. xvi. 1.\n\n  431 Exod. xxi. 13.\n\n  432 Prov. xvi. 33.\n\n  433 Prov. xxix. 13.\n\n  434 Psalm lxxv. 6, 7.\n\n  435 Exod. xvi. 13. Num. xi. 31.\n\n  436 Jonah i. 4.\n\n  437 Psalm civ. 3, 4.\n\n  438 Psalm cvii. 25, 29.\n\n  439 Amos iv. 9. Haggai i. 6\u201011.\n\n  440 Psalm cxxvii. 3.\n\n  441 Gen. xxx. 2.\n\n  442 Deut. viii. 3.\n\n  443 Isaiah iii. 1.\n\n  444 Psalm cxxxvi. 25.\n\n  445 Psalm xxxiv. 15, 16.\n\n  446 Job xiv. 5.\n\n  447 1 Sam. vi. 9.\n\n  448 Psalm xl. 5.\n\n  449 John ix. 3.\n\n  450 Psalm xxxvi. 6.\n\n  451 Deut. xxx. 12\u201014. Rom. x. 6, 7.\n\n  452 Rom. xi. 33, 34.\n\n  453 Deut. xxix. 29.\n\n  454 Job xxvi. 14.\n\n  455 Job xxviii. 21, 28.\n\n  456 Prov. xvi. 9.\n\n  457 Psalm lv. 22. 1 Peter v. 7.\n\n  458 Psalm xci. 1.\n\n  459 Zech. ii. 8.\n\n  460 Isaiah xxvi. 1; xlix. 15.\n\n  461 Psalm xci. 12.\n\n  462 Matt. x. 29, 30.\n\n  463 Exod. iii. 21.\n\n  464 1 Kings xxii. 22.\n\n  465 1 Kings xii. 10\u201015.\n\n  466 2 Sam. xvii. 7, 14.\n\n  467 Job i. 12.\n\n  468 Gen. xlv. 7, 8; l. 20.\n\n  469 Job i. 21.\n\n  470 2 Sam. xvi. 10.\n\n  471 Psalm xxxix. 9.\n\n  472 Eph. vi. 12.\n\n  473 Deut. xxviii. 1, &c.\n\n  474 Lev. xxvi. 23, 24.\n\n  475 Lam. iii. 37, 38. Amos iii. 6.\n\n  476 Isaiah xlv. 7.\n\n  477 2 Sam. x. 12.\n\n  478 Psalm xci. 3\u20106.\n\n  479 Psalm cxviii. 6; xxvii. 1, 3; xxiii. 4.\n\n  480 1 Cor. xvi. 7. 1 Thes. ii. 18.\n\n  481 Psalm xxxi. 15.\n\n  482 Isaiah vii. 4.\n\n  483 Ezek. xxix. 3, 4.\n\n  484 Gen. vi. 6.\n\n  485 1 Sam. xv. 11.\n\n  486 Jer. xviii. 8.\n\n  487 Jonah iii. 4, 10.\n\n  488 Isaiah xxxviii. 1, 5.\n\n  489 2 Kings xx. 1, 5.\n\n  490 1 Sam. xv. 29.\n\n  491 1 Sam. xv. 29.\n\n  492 Numb. xxiii. 19.\n\n  493 Psalm vii. 11.\n\n  494 Gen. xx. 3, 7.\n\n  495 Isaiah xiv. 27.\n\n  496 Psalm cxv. 3.\n\n  497 Job i. 21.\n\n  498 1 Kings xxii. 20\u201023.\n\n  499 Acts iv. 28.\n\n  500 Acts ii. 23.\n\n  501 Acts iii. 18.\n\n  502 2 Sam. xii. 12; xvi. 22.\n\n  503 Jer. l. 25.\n\n  504 Isaiah v. 26; x. 5; xix. 25.\n\n  505 2 Sam. xvi. 10.\n\n  506 1 Kings xi. 31.\n\n  507 1 Sam. ii. 34.\n\n  508 Prov. xxi. 1.\n\n  509 Isaiah xxix. 14. Psalm cvii. 40. Ezek. vii. 26.\n\n  510 Lev. xxvi. 36.\n\n  511 1 Sam. xxvi. 12.\n\n  512 Rom. i. 28; xi. 8. Exod. viii. 15.\n\n  513 Exod. iv. 21.\n\n  514 Deut. ii. 30. Joshua xi. 20.\n\n  515 Psalm cv. 25.\n\n  516 Isaiah x. 6.\n\n  517 1 Sam. xvi. 14.\n\n  518 2 Cor. iv. 4.\n\n  519 2 Thess. ii. 10\u201012.\n\n  520 Ezek. xiv. 9.\n\n  521 Rom. i. 28.\n\n  522 Psalm li. 4.\n\n  523 1 John v. 4.\n\n  524 Job i. 21.\n\n  525 1 Sam. ii. 25.\n\n  526 Psalm cxv. 3.\n\n  527 Isaiah xlv. 7. Amos iii. 6.\n\n  528 Deut. xix. 5.\n\n  529 Acts iv. 28.\n\n  530 Ephes. iii. 9, 10.\n\n  531 1 Tim. vi. 16.\n\n  532 Psalm cxi. 2.\n\n  533 2 Sam. xvi. 22.\n\n  534 2 Sam. xvi. 10.\n\n  535 1 Kings xii. 20.\n\n  536 Hosea viii. 4.\n\n  537 Hosea xiii. 11.\n\n  538 1 Kings xi. 23.\n\n  539 1 Kings xii. 15. 2 Chron. x. 15.\n\n  540 2 Kings x. 7, 8, 9, 10.\n\n  541 Rom. v. 19.\n\n  542 Rom. viii. 20, 22.\n\n  543 Psalm li. 5.\n\n  544 Job xiv. 4.\n\n  545 Rom. v. 12.\n\n  546 Rom. v. 19.\n\n  547 1 Cor. xv. 22.\n\n  548 Rom. viii. 10.\n\n  549 Ephes. ii. 3.\n\n  550 John iii. 5, 6.\n\n  551 Gal. v. 19.\n\n  552 Rom. v. 12.\n\n  553 Rom. vii. 18.\n\n  554 Ephes. iv. 17, 18.\n\n  555 Ephes. iv. 23.\n\n  556 Rom. xii. 2.\n\n  557 Rom. viii. 6, 7.\n\n  558 Eccles. vii. 29.\n\n  559 Ephes. ii. 3.\n\n  560 2 Cor. iii. 17.\n\n  561 2 Peter ii. 19.\n\n  562 John xv. 5.\n\n  563 Gen. iii. 5.\n\n  564 Jer. xvii. 5.\n\n  565 Psalm cxlvii. 10.\n\n  566 Isaiah xl. 29\u201031.\n\n  567 James iv. 6.\n\n  568 Isaiah xliv. 3.\n\n  569 Isaiah lv. 1.\n\n  570 Isaiah lx. 16.\n\n  571 John i. 5.\n\n  572 Exod. xxxi. 2\u201011; xxxv. 30\u201035.\n\n  573 Judges vi. 34; xv. 14.\n\n  574 1 Sam. x. 26.\n\n  575 1 Sam. x. 6.\n\n  576 1 Sam. xvi. 13.\n\n  577 Job xii. 24. Psalm cvii. 40.\n\n  578 John i. 4.\n\n  579 John i. 13.\n\n  580 Matt. xvi. 17.\n\n  581 Psalm xxxvi. 9.\n\n  582 1 Cor. xii. 3.\n\n  583 John iii. 27.\n\n  584 Deut. xxix. 3, 4.\n\n  585 Jer. xxiv. 7.\n\n  586 John vi. 44.\n\n  587 Heb. i. 3.\n\n  588 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n  589 1 Cor. ii. 9.\n\n  590 1 Cor. i. 20.\n\n  591 Eph. i. 17.\n\n  592 Psalm cxix. 18.\n\n  593 James i. 17.\n\n  594 John xvi. 14.\n\n  595 Rom. ii. 14, 15.\n\n  596 2 Cor. iii. 5.\n\n  597 Psalm xciv. 11.\n\n  598 Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21.\n\n  599 Psalm cxix. 34.\n\n  600 Col. i. 9. Phil. i. 4.\n\n  601 Col. i. 9.\n\n  602 Psalm li. 10.\n\n  603 Rom. vii. 18, 19.\n\n  604 Rom. vii. 20.\n\n  605 Rom. vii. 22, 23.\n\n  606 2 Cor. iii. 5.\n\n  607 Gen. viii. 21.\n\n  608 John viii. 34.\n\n  609 Phil. ii. 13.\n\n  610 Psalm cxix.\n\n  611 Psalm li. 10.\n\n  612 John iii. 6.\n\n  613 Rom. viii. 6, 7.\n\n  614 Eph. iv. 22, 23.\n\n  615 Ephes. iv. 17, 18.\n\n  616 Isaiah lx. 1, &c.\n\n  617 Psalm lxii. 9.\n\n  618 Jer. xvii. 9.\n\n  619 Rom. iii. 10\u201018.\n\n  620 Isaiah xi. 2.\n\n  621 Psalm cxi. 10.\n\n  622 Jer. xxxi. 18.\n\n  623 Jer. xxxi. 11.\n\n  624 Phil. i. 6.\n\n  625 Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27.\n\n  626 2 Cor. iii. 5.\n\n  627 Phil. ii. 13.\n\n  628 1 Cor. xii. 6.\n\n  629 1 Cor. i. 30.\n\n  630 Eph. ii. 10.\n\n  631 Psalm c. 3.\n\n  632 John vi. 45.\n\n  633 Jer. xxxii. 39.\n\n  634 Ezek. xi. 19.\n\n  635 1 Kings viii. 56.\n\n  636 Psalm cxix. 36.\n\n  637 Psalm li. 10.\n\n  638 John xv. 1, 4, 5.\n\n  639 Matt. xv. 13.\n\n  640 Phil. ii. 13.\n\n  641 1 Cor. xii. 6.\n\n  642 Psalm lxxxvi. 11.\n\n  643 Psalm cxix. 133.\n\n  644 Ezek. xi. 19, 20; xxxvi. 27.\n\n  645 John vi. 45.\n\n  646 John vi. 44.\n\n  647 1 John iii. 9.\n\n  648 Matt. xxv. 23, 29. Luke xix. 17, 26.\n\n  649 Phil. ii. 13.\n\n  650 1 Cor. xv. 10.\n\n  651 Psalm lix. 10.\n\n  652 Psalm xxiii. 6.\n\n  653 2 Cor. xii. 9.\n\n  654 2 Cor. iv. 4.\n\n  655 Eph. ii. 2.\n\n  656 Job i.\n\n  657 Deut. ii. 30.\n\n  658 Job xii. 20, 24.\n\n  659 Isaiah lxiii. 17.\n\n  660 Exod. iv. 21.\n\n  661 Exod. vii. 3.\n\n  662 Deut. ii. 30.\n\n  663 Psalm cv. 25.\n\n  664 Isaiah v. 26; vii. 18.\n\n  665 Ezek. xii. 13; xvii. 20.\n\n  666 Jer. l. 23.\n\n  667 Isaiah x. 15.\n\n  668 1 Sam. xvi. 14; xviii. 19; xix. 19.\n\n  669 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12.\n\n  670 Exod. xi. 3.\n\n  671 Gen. xliii. 14.\n\n  672 Psalm cvi. 46.\n\n  673 1 Sam. xi. 6.\n\n  674 2 Sam. xvii. 14.\n\n  675 1 Kings xii. 10.\n\n  676 Lev. xxvi. 36.\n\n  677 Prov. xx. 12.\n\n  678 Prov. xxi. 1.\n\n  679 Rom. viii. 29.\n\n  680 1 Cor. iv. 7.\n\n  681 John xv. 5.\n\n  682 1 Cor. iii. 3.\n\n  683 Rom. ix. 16.\n\n  684 1 Cor. iii. 7.\n\n  685 Ezek. xi. 19, 20.\n\n  686 John vi. 44, 45.\n\n  687 2 Cor. ii. 16.\n\n  688 Gal. iii. 19. Rom. iii. 20; iv. 15; v. 20.\n\n  689 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n  690 1 Thess. iii. 12.\n\n  691 Joel ii. 12.\n\n  692 Jer. xxxi. 18, 19.\n\n  693 Deut. x. 16, and xxx. 6.\n\n  694 Jer. iv. 4. Ezek. xxxvi. 26.\n\n  695 Acts xiii. 43.\n\n  696 Eph. vi. 10.\n\n  697 Eph. iv. 30.\n\n  698 2 Thess. i. 11.\n\n  699 2 Cor. viii. 1, &c.\n\n  700 Zech. i. 3.\n\n  701 Jer. xxxi. 32.\n\n  702 Amos v. 14. Isaiah i. 19, 20.\n\n  703 Jer. iv. 1. Deut. xxviii. 1.\n\n  704 Numb. xiv. 43.\n\n  705 Jer. vii. 13, 14.\n\n  706 Jer. vii. 28, 29.\n\n  707 Jer. xxxii. 23.\n\n  708 Jer. vii. 27.\n\n  709 Psalm lxxviii. 8.\n\n  710 Psalm xcv. 8.\n\n  711 Prov. xvi. 1.\n\n  712 Psalm cxix. 112.\n\n  713 Psalm cxix. 33\u201040.\n\n  714 Phil. ii. 12.\n\n  715 2 Peter i. 5.\n\n  716 1 Thess. v. 19.\n\n  717 2 Cor. vii. 1.\n\n  718 1 John v. 18.\n\n  719 John xvii. 15.\n\n  720 1 Peter i. 22.\n\n  721 1 John iii. 9.\n\n  722 1 John v. 4.\n\n  723 Deut. xxx. 11\u201014.\n\n  724 Rom. x. 8.\n\n  725 Deut. xxx. 6.\n\n  726 Hos. v. 15.\n\n  727 Gen. iv. 7.\n\n  728 Rom. ix. 16.\n\n  729 Tit. iii. 4, 5.\n\n  730 Epist. 107, ad Vital.\n\n  731 1 Cor. iii. 9.\n\n  732 Ecclus. xv. 14.\n\n  733 Eccles. vii. 29.\n\n  734 Luke x. 30.\n\n  735 Eph. ii. 5; v. 14.\n\n  736 John v. 25.\n\n  737 1 Cor. i. 21.\n\n  738 John xvii. 3.\n\n  739 John iv. 22.\n\n  740 Ephes. ii. 12.\n\n  741 John i. 4.\n\n  742 John i. 12.\n\n  743 Gal. iii. 16.\n\n  744 1 Sam. ii. 10.\n\n  745 Psalm ii. 12.\n\n  746 John v. 24.\n\n  747 1 Kings xi. 13.\n\n  748 1 Kings xi. 39.\n\n  749 1 Kings xv. 4.\n\n  750 2 Kings viii. 19.\n\n  751 Psalm lxxviii. 60, 67, 68, 70, 71.\n\n  752 Psalm xxviii. 8.\n\n  753 Psalm xx. 9.\n\n  754 Psalm cxviii. 25, 26.\n\n  755 Psalm lxxx. 17.\n\n  756 Lam. iv. 20.\n\n  757 Hab. iii. 13.\n\n  758 Isaiah vii. 14.\n\n  759 Isaiah lv. 3.\n\n  760 Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.\n\n  761 Ezek. xxxiv. 23\u201025.\n\n  762 Ezek. xxxvii. 24, 26.\n\n  763 Hos. i. 11.\n\n  764 Hos. iii. 5.\n\n  765 Mic. ii. 13.\n\n  766 Amos ix. 11.\n\n  767 Zech. ix. 9.\n\n  768 Psalm xxviii. 8, 9.\n\n  769 Matt. xxi. 9.\n\n  770 John xiv. 1.\n\n  771 Col. i. 15.\n\n  772 Rom. x. 4.\n\n  773 Lib. 4, c. 8.\n\n  774 1 John ii. 23.\n\n  775 Acts vii. 44. Heb. viii. 5. Ex. xxv. 40.\n\n  776 Exod. xix. 6.\n\n  777 1 Peter ii. 9.\n\n  778 Gal. iii. 24.\n\n  779 Isaiah liii. 5, &c.\n\n  780 Dan. ix. 26, &c.\n\n  781 Psalm cx. 4.\n\n  782 Rom. x. 4.\n\n  783 2 Cor. iii. 17.\n\n  784 Gal. iii. 19.\n\n  785 Deut. xxx. 15, 19.\n\n  786 Eccles. vii. 20.\n\n  787 Psalm cxliii. 2.\n\n  788 Job iv. 17; ix. 2; xv. 14; xxv. 4.\n\n  789 Gal. v. 17.\n\n  790 Gal. iii. 10.\n\n  791 Lib. de Nat. et Grat.\n\n  792 Matt. xix. 25, 26.\n\n  793 Rom. viii. 3, &c.\n\n  794 Rom. vii. 7.\n\n  795 Rom. iii. 20.\n\n  796 Rom. v. 20.\n\n  797 2 Cor. iii. 7. Rom. iv. 15.\n\n  798 Rom. iii. 19.\n\n  799 Rom. xi. 32.\n\n  800 1 Tim. i. 9, 10.\n\n  801 Gal. iii. 24.\n\n  802 Psalm xix. 7, 8.\n\n  803 Psalm cxix. 105.\n\n  804 Deut. xxxii. 46, 47.\n\n  805 Psalm i. 2.\n\n  806 Matt. v. 17, 18.\n\n  807 Gal. iii. 10.\n\n  808 Gal. iii. 13.\n\n  809 Gal. iv. 4, 5.\n\n  810 Col. ii. 17.\n\n  811 Matt. xxvii. 51.\n\n  812 Luke xvi. 16.\n\n  813 John i. 17.\n\n  814 Col. ii. 13, 14.\n\n  815 Ephes. ii. 14, 15.\n\n  816 Heb. x. 3\u201014.\n\n  817 Heb. ix. 15.\n\n  818 Lev. xviii. 5.\n\n  819 Ezek. xviii. 4.\n\n  820 Deut. xii. 28, 32.\n\n  821 Deut. iv. 5, 6, 9.\n\n  822 Rom. vii. 14.\n\n  823 Matt. v. 22, 28.\n\n  824 Matt. xxii. 37\u201040. Luke x. 27.\n\n  825 Rom. xi. 36.\n\n  826 Jer. xxxi. 33.\n\n  827 Matt. xxii. 32.\n\n  828 Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 2; xxvi. 18.\n\n  829 Lev. xi. 44.\n\n  830 Mal. i. 6.\n\n  831 Exod. iii. 6. Amos i. 2. Hab. ii. 20. Psalm lxxx. 1; xcix. 1. Isaiah\n      xxxvii. 16.\n\n  832 Deut. iv. 17.\n\n  833 Cap. xi. xii.\n\n  834 Jer. iii. 1, 2. Hos. ii. 2.\n\n  835 Ezek. xviii. 20.\n\n  836 Num. xiv. 18.\n\n  837 Jer. xxxii. 18.\n\n  838 Isaiah xxxix. 7.\n\n  839 Gen. xii. 17; xx. 3.\n\n  840 Ezek. xviii. 2.\n\n  841 Gen. xvii. 7.\n\n  842 Prov. xx. 7.\n\n  843 Isaiah xix. 18.\n\n  844 Isaiah lxv. 16.\n\n  845 Jer. xii. 16.\n\n  846 Jer. v. 7.\n\n  847 Zeph. i. 4, 5.\n\n  848 Lev. xix. 12.\n\n  849 Joshua vii. 19.\n\n  850 John ix. 24.\n\n  851 1 Sam. xiv. 45.\n\n  852 2 Kings vi. 31.\n\n  853 2 Cor. i. 23.\n\n  854 Deut. vi. 13.\n\n  855 Exod. xxiii. 13.\n\n  856 Heb. vi. 13, 16.\n\n  857 Matt. v. 34.\n\n  858 Exod. xxii. 11.\n\n  859 John x. 30, 18; vii. 16.\n\n  860 James v. 12.\n\n  861 Heb. vi. 16.\n\n  862 Gen. xxi. 24; xxvi. 31; xxxi. 53.\n\n  863 Ruth iii. 13.\n\n  864 1 Kings xviii. 10.\n\n  865 Numb. xiii. 22. Ezek. xx. 12; xxii. 8; xxiii. 38.\n\n  866 Jer. xvii. 21, 22, 27. Isaiah lvi. 2.\n\n  867 Neh. ix. 14.\n\n  868 Exod. xxxi. 13, 14, 16, 17.\n\n  869 Ezek. xx. 12.\n\n  870 Heb. iv. 9.\n\n  871 Isaiah lxvi. 23.\n\n  872 1 Cor. xv. 28.\n\n  873 Isaiah lviii. 13, 14.\n\n  874 Rom. vi. 4, &c.\n\n  875 Col. ii. 16, 17.\n\n  876 Deut. v. 14, 15.\n\n  877 Exod. xxiii. 12.\n\n  878 1 Cor. xiv. 40.\n\n  879 Col. ii. 16, 17.\n\n  880 Gal. iv. 10, 11.\n\n  881 Rom. xiv. 5.\n\n  882 1 Tim. v. 17.\n\n  883 Exod. xxi. 17.\n\n  884 Deut. xxi. 18\u201021.\n\n  885 Matt. xv. 4\u20106.\n\n  886 Eph. vi. 1. Col. iii. 20.\n\n  887 1 John iii. 15.\n\n  888 Matt. v. 22.\n\n  889 Matt. xix. 11.\n\n  890 Matt. xix. 12.\n\n  891 1 Cor. vii. 7.\n\n  892 1 Cor. vii. 2, 9.\n\n  893 1 Cor. vii. 34.\n\n  894 1 Cor. vii. 9.\n\n  895 Exod. xxiii. 1, 7.\n\n  896 Lev. xix. 16.\n\n  897 Deut. x. 12, 13.\n\n  898 Deut. xi. 22.\n\n  899 Luke x. 27.\n\n  900 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n  901 Matt. xxiii. 23.\n\n  902 Matt. xix. 18, 19.\n\n  903 Psalm xvi. 2.\n\n  904 Ephes. iii. 17.\n\n  905 Rom. xiii. 8.\n\n  906 Gal. v. 14.\n\n  907 Matt. vii. 12.\n\n  908 1 Cor. xiii. 5.\n\n  909 Prov. xxv. 21.\n\n  910 Exod. xxiii. 4, 5.\n\n  911 Rom. xii. 19.\n\n  912 Lev. xix. 18.\n\n  913 Matt. v. 44, 45.\n\n  914 Matt. v. 46.\n\n  915 Rom. xiii. 9.\n\n  916 Rom. vi. 23.\n\n  917 Matt. v. 19.\n\n  918 Ezek. xviii. 20.\n\n  919 Rom. vi. 23.\n\n  920 Mal. iv. 2.\n\n  921 1 Peter i. 10\u201012.\n\n  922 John v. 46.\n\n  923 Matt. xiii. 16.\n\n  924 Luke x. 24.\n\n  925 John viii. 56.\n\n  926 John i. 18.\n\n  927 Heb. i. 1, 2.\n\n  928 Heb. i. 3.\n\n  929 2 Cor. iv. 6.\n\n  930 2 Cor. iv. 4.\n\n  931 1 Tim. iv. 6.\n\n  932 Matt. ix. 35.\n\n  933 2 Tim. i. 10.\n\n  934 2 Cor. i. 20.\n\n  935 John i. 51.\n\n  936 Col. i. 5.\n\n  937 1 John iii. 2.\n\n  938 1 Tim. iv. 8.\n\n  939 2 Tim. i. 1.\n\n  940 2 Cor. vii. 1.\n\n  941 Ephes. i. 13.\n\n  942 Rom. i. 16; iii. 21.\n\n  943 Rom. xvi. 25, 26.\n\n  944 John i. 29.\n\n  945 Matt. xi. 11.\n\n  946 John i. 23.\n\n  947 Mal. iv. 5.\n\n  948 John v. 35.\n\n  949 Rom. i. 1\u20103.\n\n  950 Rom. iii. 21.\n\n  951 Ephes. i. 13, 14.\n\n  952 Col. i. 4, 5.\n\n  953 2 Thess. ii. 14.\n\n  954 Rom. iii. 19.\n\n  955 John viii. 56.\n\n  956 Heb. xiii. 8.\n\n  957 Luke i. 54, 72.\n\n  958 1 Cor. x. 1\u201011.\n\n  959 John vi. 49, 51.\n\n  960 1 Peter i. 23, 25.\n\n  961 Isaiah xl. 8.\n\n  962 Lev. xxvi. 12.\n\n  963 Psalm cxliv. 15; xxxiii. 12.\n\n  964 Hab. i. 12.\n\n  965 Isaiah xxxiii. 22.\n\n  966 Deut. xxxiii. 29.\n\n  967 Lev. xxvi. 12.\n\n  968 Exod. vi. 7.\n\n  969 Gen. xvii. 7.\n\n  970 Exod. xx. 6.\n\n  971 Exod. iii. 6.\n\n  972 Matt. xxii. 32\u201034. Luke xx. 37\u201040.\n\n  973 Deut. xxxiii. 3.\n\n  974 Gen. iii. 17\u201019.\n\n  975 Gen. iv. 8, 14.\n\n  976 Gen. vi. 14\u201021.\n\n  977 Gen. vii. 11; viii. 13.\n\n  978 Gen. ix. 24, 25.\n\n  979 Gen. xii. 1.\n\n  980 Gen. xii. 10\u201015.\n\n  981 Gen. xx. 1, 2.\n\n  982 Gen. xiii. 7\u201011.\n\n  983 Gen. xiv. 12, 13.\n\n  984 Gen. xxi. 25\u201030.\n\n  985 Gen. xv. 2.\n\n  986 Gen. xvi. 1\u201015.\n\n  987 Gen. xxi. 2, 3, 10\u201014.\n\n  988 Gen. xxii. 2.\n\n  989 Gen. xxvi. 1, 7, 20, 21.\n\n  990 Gen. xxvi. 34, 35.\n\n  991 Gen. xxviii. 5.\n\n  992 Gen. xxvii. 41\u201045.\n\n  993 Gen. xxix. 20, 23, 25.\n\n  994 Gen. xxix. 27.\n\n  995 Gen. xxxi. 40, 41.\n\n  996 Gen. xxx. 1.\n\n  997 Gen. xxxi. 25, 36.\n\n  998 Gen. xxxii. xxxiii.\n\n  999 Gen. xxxv. 19.\n\n 1000 Gen. xxxvii. 32\u201035.\n\n 1001 Gen. xxxiv.\n\n 1002 Gen. xxxv. 22.\n\n 1003 Gen. xxxviii. 13\u201018.\n\n 1004 Gen. xlii.\n\n 1005 Gen. xlvii. 9.\n\n 1006 Heb. xi. 9, &c.\n\n 1007 Gen. xlvii. 9.\n\n 1008 Gen. xlvii. 30.\n\n 1009 Gen. l. 25.\n\n 1010 Gen. xlix. 18.\n\n 1011 Numb. xxiii. 10.\n\n 1012 Psalm cxvi. 15.\n\n 1013 Psalm xxxiv. 21.\n\n 1014 Psalm xxxix. 12, 5, 6, 7.\n\n 1015 Psalm ciii. 17.\n\n 1016 Psalm cii. 25\u201028.\n\n 1017 Isaiah li. 6.\n\n 1018 Psalm xcvii. 10, 11.\n\n 1019 Psalm cxii. 9, 10.\n\n 1020 Psalm cxl. 13.\n\n 1021 Psalm cxii. 6.\n\n 1022 Psalm xxxiv. 22.\n\n 1023 Psalm lxxiii. 2.\n\n 1024 Psalm lxxiii. 16, 17.\n\n 1025 Psalm xvii. 15.\n\n 1026 Psalm lii. 8.\n\n 1027 Psalm xcii. 12\u201014, 5, 7.\n\n 1028 Psalm lv. 22, 23.\n\n 1029 Job xxi. 13.\n\n 1030 Psalm xlix. 6, &c.\n\n 1031 Psalm xxx. 5.\n\n 1032 Isaiah liv. 7, 8.\n\n 1033 Prov. x. 7.\n\n 1034 Psalm cxvi. 15.\n\n 1035 1 Sam. ii. 9.\n\n 1036 Ezek. xxviii. 10; xxxi. 18.\n\n 1037 Psalm lxix. 28.\n\n 1038 Job xix. 25, &c.\n\n 1039 Job xiii. 15.\n\n 1040 Ezek. xxxvii.\n\n 1041 Isaiah xxvi. 19\u201021.\n\n 1042 Isaiah lxvi. 22\u201024.\n\n 1043 Dan. xii. 1, 2.\n\n 1044 Matt. viii. 11.\n\n 1045 Acts iii. 25.\n\n 1046 Matt. xxvii. 52.\n\n 1047 Acts xv. 8.\n\n 1048 Eph. i. 14.\n\n 1049 2 Cor. iii. 14\u201016.\n\n 1050 Gal. iv.\n\n 1051 Gen. xv. 1.\n\n 1052 Psalm lxxxiv. 2.\n\n 1053 Psalm lxxiii. 26.\n\n 1054 Psalm xvi. 5.\n\n 1055 Psalm cxlii. 5.\n\n 1056 Psalm xxxvii. 29.\n\n 1057 Prov. ii. 22.\n\n 1058 Psalm cxxxiii. 3.\n\n 1059 Col. ii. 17.\n\n 1060 Heb. x. 1, &c.\n\n 1061 Heb. vii. 17. Psalm cx. 4.\n\n 1062 Heb. vii. 23, 24.\n\n 1063 Heb. vii. 20, 21.\n\n 1064 Heb. vii. 12.\n\n 1065 Heb. vii. 19.\n\n 1066 Heb. ix. 13, 14; x. 4.\n\n 1067 Heb. x. 1.\n\n 1068 Heb. vii. 19.\n\n 1069 Heb. vii. 22.\n\n 1070 Matt. xxvi. 28.\n\n 1071 Gal. iii. 24.\n\n 1072 Gal. iv. 1, &c.\n\n 1073 Luke xvi. 16.\n\n 1074 Col. ii. 3.\n\n 1075 Luke x. 24.\n\n 1076 Matt. xiii. 16.\n\n 1077 1 Peter i. 12.\n\n 1078 Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.\n\n 1079 2 Cor. iii. 6, &c.\n\n 1080 Rom. viii. 15.\n\n 1081 Heb. xii. 18, &c.\n\n 1082 Gal. iv. 22, &c.\n\n 1083 Luke xvi. 16.\n\n 1084 Deut. xxxii. 8, 9.\n\n 1085 Deut. x. 14.\n\n 1086 Acts xiv. 16.\n\n 1087 Gal. iv. 4.\n\n 1088 Matt. xvii. 11.\n\n 1089 Eph. ii. 14.\n\n 1090 Col. iii. 11.\n\n 1091 Psalm ii. 8.\n\n 1092 Psalm lxxii. 8.\n\n 1093 Phil. ii. 9, 10.\n\n 1094 Matt. xv. 24.\n\n 1095 Matt. x. 5, 6.\n\n 1096 Col. i. 26.\n\n 1097 Eph. iii. 10.\n\n 1098 Gal. iv. 1\u20103.\n\n 1099 1 Tim. ii. 5.\n\n 1100 Heb. iv. 15.\n\n 1101 Eph. v. 30.\n\n 1102 John xx. 17.\n\n 1103 Rom. viii. 17.\n\n 1104 Col. i. 15.\n\n 1105 Isaiah liii. 4, &c.\n\n 1106 John i. 9, &c.\n\n 1107 John iii. 16.\n\n 1108 John v. 25.\n\n 1109 John xi. 25.\n\n 1110 Matt. xviii. 11.\n\n 1111 Matt. ix. 12.\n\n 1112 Heb. v. 1.\n\n 1113 2 Cor. v. 19.\n\n 1114 Rom. viii. 3.\n\n 1115 Titus iii. 4.\n\n 1116 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.\n\n 1117 John x. 17, 18.\n\n 1118 John iii. 14.\n\n 1119 John xii. 27.\n\n 1120 John xvii. 1.\n\n 1121 Luke i. 72, 79.\n\n 1122 Col. ii. 3.\n\n 1123 1 Cor. ii. 2.\n\n 1124 Eph. i. 4, &c.\n\n 1125 Eph. iii. 18, 19.\n\n 1126 1 Tim. i. 15.\n\n 1127 2 Tim. i. 9.\n\n 1128 Titus iii. 9.\n\n 1129 Eph. i. 22.\n\n 1130 Psalm lxxxii. 6.\n\n 1131 Col. ii. 10.\n\n 1132 Heb. iv. 15.\n\n 1133 Luke iii. 38.\n\n 1134 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47.\n\n 1135 Col. i. 15.\n\n 1136 Col. i. 16, 18.\n\n 1137 Gen. ii. 23.\n\n 1138 Eph. v. 30, 32.\n\n 1139 Gal. iv. 4.\n\n 1140 Gen. xii. 3; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxvi. 4. Acts iii. 25; ii. 30.\n      Psalm cxxxii. 11. Matt. i. 1.\n\n 1141 Rom. i. 3; ix. 5.\n\n 1142 Gal. iv. 4.\n\n 1143 Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17; iv. 15.\n\n 1144 Rom. viii. 3.\n\n 1145 Eph. iv. 15, 16.\n\n 1146 John iii. 34; i. 16.\n\n 1147 John xvii. 19.\n\n 1148 Phil. ii. 7, 8.\n\n 1149 1 Peter iii. 18.\n\n 1150 2 Cor. xiii. 4.\n\n 1151 1 Cor. xv. 47.\n\n 1152 1 Cor. xv. 13, 14.\n\n 1153 Heb. ii. 10, 11, 14.\n\n 1154 Rom. viii. 29.\n\n 1155 Heb. ii. 16.\n\n 1156 Gen. iii. 15.\n\n 1157 Gal. iii. 16.\n\n 1158 Rom. i. 3.\n\n 1159 Rom. ix. 5.\n\n 1160 Acts ii. 30.\n\n 1161 Psalm cxxxii. 11.\n\n 1162 Gal. iv. 4.\n\n 1163 Matt. i. 16. \u03b5\u03be \u1f26\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n 1164 Matt. i. 5. \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1fec\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b2.\n\n 1165 Gal. iii. 22.\n\n 1166 Rom. v. 12, 15, 18.\n\n 1167 1 Cor. xv. 47.\n\n 1168 Rom. viii. 3.\n\n 1169 John xvii. 19.\n\n 1170 John i. 14.\n\n 1171 John viii. 58.\n\n 1172 Col. i. 15.\n\n 1173 John xvii. 5.\n\n 1174 John v. 17.\n\n 1175 Isaiah xlii. 1.\n\n 1176 Luke ii. 52.\n\n 1177 John viii. 50. Mark xiii. 32. John xiv. 10; vi. 38. Luke xxiv. 39.\n\n 1178 Acts xx. 28.\n\n 1179 1 Cor. ii. 8.\n\n 1180 1 John i. 1.\n\n 1181 1 John iii. 16.\n\n 1182 John iii. 13.\n\n 1183 John i. 29; v. 21\u201023.\n\n 1184 John ix. 5; x. 9, 11; xv. 1.\n\n 1185 1 Cor. xv. 24.\n\n 1186 Phil. ii. 8.\n\n 1187 Heb. ii. 7.\n\n 1188 Phil. ii. 10.\n\n 1189 1 Cor. xv. 28.\n\n 1190 1 Cor. viii. 6.\n\n 1191 Luke i. 35, 43.\n\n 1192 John ii. 19.\n\n 1193 Luke i. 35.\n\n 1194 Rom. viii. 15. Gal. iv. 5, 6.\n\n 1195 Psalm lxxxii. 6.\n\n 1196 Col. i. 15\u201018.\n\n 1197 Rom. i. 1\u20104.\n\n 1198 Rom. viii. 32.\n\n 1199 Luke i. 32.\n\n 1200 1 John i. 1.\n\n 1201 Micah v. 2.\n\n 1202 Eph. iii. 15.\n\n 1203 Prov. xxx. 4.\n\n 1204 Gen. ii. 7.\n\n 1205 Prov. viii. 22, &c.\n\n 1206 Col. ii. 19.\n\n 1207 John iv. 25.\n\n 1208 Isaiah lv. 4.\n\n 1209 Isaiah ix. 6.\n\n 1210 Heb. i. 1, 2.\n\n 1211 Psalm lxxiv. 9.\n\n 1212 Dan. ix. 24.\n\n 1213 Isaiah lxi. 1, 2.\n\n 1214 Matt. xvii. 5.\n\n 1215 Joel ii. 28.\n\n 1216 1 Cor. i. 30.\n\n 1217 Col. ii. 3.\n\n 1218 1 Cor. ii. 2.\n\n 1219 Psalm lxxxix. 35\u201037.\n\n 1220 Isaiah iii. 8.\n\n 1221 Psalm ii. 1, &c.\n\n 1222 Psalm cx. 1.\n\n 1223 John xviii. 36.\n\n 1224 Luke xvii. 20, 21.\n\n 1225 Rom. xiv. 17.\n\n 1226 Luke ix. 20.\n\n 1227 Isaiah xi. 2.\n\n 1228 Psalm xlv. 7.\n\n 1229 John iii. 34.\n\n 1230 John i. 16.\n\n 1231 Eph. iv. 7.\n\n 1232 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28.\n\n 1233 Eph. i. 20, 22, 23.\n\n 1234 Phil. ii. 9\u201011.\n\n 1235 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.\n\n 1236 Isaiah xxxiii. 22.\n\n 1237 Psalm ii. 9.\n\n 1238 Psalm cx. 6.\n\n 1239 Psalm cx. 4.\n\n 1240 Rev. i. 6.\n\n 1241 Eph. v. 2.\n\n 1242 John xvii. 19.\n\n 1243 Dan. ix. 24.\n\n 1244 Acts iv. 12.\n\n 1245 Matt. i. 21.\n\n 1246 Rom. v. 10.\n\n 1247 Gal. iii. 10\u201013.\n\n 1248 Col. i. 21, 22.\n\n 1249 1 John iv. 19.\n\n 1250 Eph. i. 4, 5.\n\n 1251 John iii. 16.\n\n 1252 Rom. v. 10.\n\n 1253 Rom. v. 8.\n\n 1254 Rom. v. 19.\n\n 1255 Gal. iv. 4, 5.\n\n 1256 Matt. iii. 15.\n\n 1257 Matt. xx. 28.\n\n 1258 1 Cor. xv. 3.\n\n 1259 John i. 29.\n\n 1260 Rom. iii. 24, 25.\n\n 1261 Rom. v. 9, 10.\n\n 1262 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1263 Phil. ii. 7, 8.\n\n 1264 John x. 15, 18.\n\n 1265 Isaiah liii. 7.\n\n 1266 John xviii. 4.\n\n 1267 Matt. xxvii. 12, 14.\n\n 1268 Psalm xl. 7, 8.\n\n 1269 Isaiah liii. 5.\n\n 1270 Isaiah liii. 12. Mark xv. 28.\n\n 1271 Matt. xxvii. 18, 23, 24. John xviii. 38.\n\n 1272 Psalm lxix. 4.\n\n 1273 Isaiah liii. 10.\n\n 1274 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1275 Rom. viii. 3.\n\n 1276 Isaiah liii. 6.\n\n 1277 Gal. iii. 13, 14.\n\n 1278 1 Peter ii. 24.\n\n 1279 Col. ii. 14, 15.\n\n 1280 Heb. ix. 14.\n\n 1281 1 Cor. i. 30.\n\n 1282 1 Tim. ii. 6.\n\n 1283 Rom. iii. 25.\n\n 1284 Heb. ii. 9.\n\n 1285 Heb. ii. 14, 15.\n\n 1286 Col. iii. 5.\n\n 1287 Rom. vi. 4, 5.\n\n 1288 Gal. vi. 14.\n\n 1289 Col. iii. 3.\n\n 1290 Psalm cvii. 16.\n\n 1291 Zech. ix. 11.\n\n 1292 1 Peter iii. 19.\n\n 1293 Isaiah liii. 5.\n\n 1294 Acts ii. 24.\n\n 1295 Acts ii. 24.\n\n 1296 Heb. v. 7.\n\n 1297 Matt. xxvii. 46.\n\n 1298 Isaiah xlii. 1.\n\n 1299 Isaiah liii. 4.\n\n 1300 Heb. ii. 15.\n\n 1301 Heb. iv. 15.\n\n 1302 Matt. xxvi. 39.\n\n 1303 Acts ii. 24.\n\n 1304 Matt. xxvii. 46.\n\n 1305 John xii. 27.\n\n 1306 John xii. 27, 28.\n\n 1307 1 Peter i. 3.\n\n 1308 Rom. iv. 25.\n\n 1309 Rom. i. 4.\n\n 1310 2 Cor. xiii. 4.\n\n 1311 Phil. iii. 10.\n\n 1312 1 Peter i. 21.\n\n 1313 1 Peter i. 5.\n\n 1314 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17.\n\n 1315 Rom. viii. 34.\n\n 1316 Rom. vi. 4, 5.\n\n 1317 Col. iii. 5.\n\n 1318 Col. iii. 1, 2.\n\n 1319 1 Cor. xv.\n\n 1320 Eph. iv. 10.\n\n 1321 John vii. 37, 39.\n\n 1322 John xvi. 7.\n\n 1323 Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\n 1324 Eph. i. 20\u201022.\n\n 1325 Acts vii. 55, 56.\n\n 1326 Eph. ii. 6.\n\n 1327 Heb. ix. 24.\n\n 1328 Rom. viii. 34.\n\n 1329 Heb. iv. 16.\n\n 1330 Eph. iv. 8.\n\n 1331 Acts i. 11.\n\n 1332 Matt. xxiv. 30; xxv. 31. 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.\n\n 1333 Heb. ix. 27.\n\n 1334 1 Cor. xv. 51.\n\n 1335 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.\n\n 1336 Acts x. 42.\n\n 1337 2 Tim. iv. 1.\n\n 1338 Rom. viii. 34.\n\n 1339 John v. 22.\n\n 1340 Acts iii. 15.\n\n 1341 John iii. 16.\n\n 1342 1 John iv. 10.\n\n 1343 1 John ii. 2.\n\n 1344 Col. i. 19, 20.\n\n 1345 2 Cor. v. 19.\n\n 1346 Eph. i. 6.\n\n 1347 Eph. ii. 16.\n\n 1348 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1349 Rom. v. 10, 11.\n\n 1350 Rom. v. 19.\n\n 1351 Rom. v. 16.\n\n 1352 1 John i. 7.\n\n 1353 Matt. xxvi. 28.\n\n 1354 John i. 29.\n\n 1355 Heb. ix. 22, 26, 28.\n\n 1356 Heb. ix. 12.\n\n 1357 Heb. ix. 13, 14.\n\n 1358 Heb. ix. 15.\n\n 1359 Gal. iii. 13.\n\n 1360 Isaiah liii. 5.\n\n 1361 Isaiah liii. 8.\n\n 1362 1 Peter ii. 24.\n\n 1363 Rom. iii. 24, 25.\n\n 1364 1 Peter i. 18, 19.\n\n 1365 1 Cor. vi. 20.\n\n 1366 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6.\n\n 1367 Col. i. 14.\n\n 1368 Col. ii. 14.\n\n 1369 Gal. ii. 21.\n\n 1370 Lev. xviii. 5.\n\n 1371 Acts xiii. 39.\n\n 1372 Gal. iv. 4, 5.\n\n 1373 Rom. iv. 5.\n\n 1374 John vi. 55.\n\n 1375 Eph. v. 2.\n\n 1376 Rom. iv. 25.\n\n 1377 Isaiah xxxvii. 35.\n\n 1378 1 John ii. 12.\n\n 1379 John vi. 57.\n\n 1380 Phil. i. 29.\n\n 1381 Rom. viii. 32.\n\n 1382 John iii. 16.\n\n 1383 Isaiah ix. 6.\n\n 1384 Zech. ix. 9.\n\n 1385 Rom. v. 8, 10.\n\n 1386 John xvii. 19.\n\n 1387 Phil. ii. 9.\n\n 1388 Luke xxiv. 26.\n\n 1389 Ephes. iv. 15.\n\n 1390 Rom. viii. 29.\n\n 1391 Rom. xi. 17.\n\n 1392 Gal. iii. 27.\n\n 1393 1 John v. 7, 8.\n\n 1394 1 Pet. i. 2.\n\n 1395 1 Cor. vi. 11.\n\n 1396 Rom. i. 4.\n\n 1397 Joel ii. 28.\n\n 1398 Rom. viii. 9.\n\n 1399 Rom. viii. 11.\n\n 1400 John vii. 37.\n\n 1401 Ephes. iv. 7.\n\n 1402 1 Cor. xv. 45.\n\n 1403 2 Cor. xiii. 14.\n\n 1404 Rom. v. 5.\n\n 1405 Rom. viii. 15.\n\n 1406 2 Cor. i. 22. Eph. i. 13, 14.\n\n 1407 Rom. viii. 10.\n\n 1408 Isaiah lv. 1.\n\n 1409 Isaiah xliv. 3.\n\n 1410 John vii. 37; iv. 14.\n\n 1411 Ezek. xxxvi. 25.\n\n 1412 1 John ii. 20.\n\n 1413 Luke iii. 16.\n\n 1414 Eph. iv. 15. Rom. viii. 29. Gal. iii. 27.\n\n 1415 Eph. v. 30.\n\n 1416 John i. 12, 13.\n\n 1417 Matt. xvi. 17.\n\n 1418 Eph. i. 13.\n\n 1419 2 Thess. ii. 13.\n\n 1420 1 John iii. 24.\n\n 1421 1 John iv. 13.\n\n 1422 John xiv. 17.\n\n 1423 2 Cor. iii. 6.\n\n 1424 John vi. 44.\n\n 1425 Luke iii. 16.\n\n 1426 1 Tim. vi. 16.\n\n 1427 John viii. 12.\n\n 1428 John xiv. 6.\n\n 1429 Luke x. 22.\n\n 1430 1 Cor. ii. 2.\n\n 1431 Acts xxvi. 17, 18.\n\n 1432 2 Cor. iv. 6.\n\n 1433 John xvii. 3.\n\n 1434 1 Pet. i. 21.\n\n 1435 Rom. x. 10.\n\n 1436 John xvii. 3.\n\n 1437 Phil. iii. 15.\n\n 1438 John iv. 50\u201053.\n\n 1439 John iv. 42.\n\n 1440 2 Tim. iii. 7.\n\n 1441 Eph. iv. 20, 21.\n\n 1442 1 Tim. iv. 6.\n\n 1443 Gal. iii. 23\u201025.\n\n 1444 Isaiah lv. 3.\n\n 1445 John xx. 31.\n\n 1446 Psalm xcv. 7.\n\n 1447 Isaiah liv. 13.\n\n 1448 Rom. i. 5.\n\n 1449 Phil. ii. 17.\n\n 1450 Gen. ii. 17.\n\n 1451 Gen. iv. 10.\n\n 1452 Psalm xl. 10, 11.\n\n 1453 Psalm xxxvi. 5.\n\n 1454 Psalm xxv. 10.\n\n 1455 Psalm cxvii. 2.\n\n 1456 Psalm cxxxviii. 2.\n\n 1457 Rom. x. 10.\n\n 1458 Rom. i. 5.\n\n 1459 John iii. 33.\n\n 1460 1 Cor. xiii. 2.\n\n 1461 1 Cor. xii. 10\u201031.\n\n 1462 Acts viii. 13, 18, 19.\n\n 1463 James ii. 19.\n\n 1464 Heb. vi. 4.\n\n 1465 Gal. iv. 6.\n\n 1466 Rom. v. 5.\n\n 1467 John ii. 24, 25.\n\n 1468 John viii. 31, 32.\n\n 1469 Titus i. 1.\n\n 1470 Matt. xv. 13.\n\n 1471 James ii. 14.\n\n 1472 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n 1473 1 Tim. i. 19.\n\n 1474 1 Tim. iii. 9.\n\n 1475 1 Tim. iv. 1.\n\n 1476 1 Tim. iv. 6.\n\n 1477 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21.\n\n 1478 2 Tim. iii. 8.\n\n 1479 Titus i. 13.\n\n 1480 Col. ii. 3.\n\n 1481 Matt. ix. 2. Mark ii. 5.\n\n 1482 Matt. viii. 10.\n\n 1483 Eph. iii. 18.\n\n 1484 Col. i. 26.\n\n 1485 Col. ii. 2.\n\n 1486 1 John iii. 2.\n\n 1487 Psalm xii. 6.\n\n 1488 Psalm xviii. 30.\n\n 1489 Prov. xxx. 5.\n\n 1490 Eph. iii. 12.\n\n 1491 Rom. v. 1.\n\n 1492 Heb. iii. 14.\n\n 1493 Rom. viii. 38.\n\n 1494 Eph. i. 18.\n\n 1495 Psalm xlii. 5.\n\n 1496 Psalm xxxi. 22.\n\n 1497 Psalm lxxvii. 7, 9, 10.\n\n 1498 Psalm cxvi. 7.\n\n 1499 Psalm xxvii. 14.\n\n 1500 Isaiah vii. 4.\n\n 1501 Isaiah vii. 2.\n\n 1502 Psalm cxix. 43.\n\n 1503 1 Cor. xiii. 9, 12.\n\n 1504 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n\n 1505 Matt. viii. 25.\n\n 1506 Job xiii. 15.\n\n 1507 Psalm xxiii. 4.\n\n 1508 1 John v. 4.\n\n 1509 1 Cor. x. 11.\n\n 1510 1 Cor. x. 12.\n\n 1511 Rom. xi. 10.\n\n 1512 Phil. ii. 11.\n\n 1513 Psalm v. 7.\n\n 1514 Prov. xxviii. 14.\n\n 1515 Hosea iii. 5.\n\n 1516 Rom. viii. 10.\n\n 1517 Isaiah lxiv. 6.\n\n 1518 Matt. vi. 23.\n\n 1519 Rom. ix. 11.\n\n 1520 Psalm cxi. 10.\n\n 1521 Prov. i. 7; ix. 10. Job xxviii. 28.\n\n 1522 Mal. i. 6.\n\n 1523 1 John iv. 18.\n\n 1524 Eph. v. 6. Col. iii. 6.\n\n 1525 Psalm lxxx. 3.\n\n 1526 Eph. ii. 14, 15.\n\n 1527 Psalm lxiii. 3.\n\n 1528 Rom. viii. 39.\n\n 1529 Psalm xxiii. 4.\n\n 1530 Psalm xxxiii. 12.\n\n 1531 Rom. x. 8.\n\n 1532 Rom. i. 5, 16, 17.\n\n 1533 2 Cor. v. 18.\n\n 1534 Psalm cxlv. 8, 9.\n\n 1535 Heb. xi. 7.\n\n 1536 Rom. x. 8.\n\n 1537 Psalm ix. 10.\n\n 1538 Psalm cxix. 41.\n\n 1539 Psalm cxix. 146, 147.\n\n 1540 Rom. iv. 21.\n\n 1541 2 Tim. i. 12.\n\n 1542 Psalm cxliii. 5.\n\n 1543 Psalm lxxvii. 11.\n\n 1544 1 Cor. ii. 2.\n\n 1545 2 Cor. i. 20.\n\n 1546 Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5.\n\n 1547 Eph. i. 6.\n\n 1548 Eph. ii. 14.\n\n 1549 Rom. viii. 3.\n\n 1550 Rom. xv. 8.\n\n 1551 2 Kings v. 17\u201019.\n\n 1552 Acts x. 31.\n\n 1553 Acts viii. 17, 31.\n\n 1554 2 Tim. i. 14.\n\n 1555 Gal. iii. 2.\n\n 1556 1 Cor. ii. 11.\n\n 1557 2 Cor. iii. 14.\n\n 1558 Matt. xi. 25.\n\n 1559 Matt. xvi. 17.\n\n 1560 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n 1561 Rom. xi. 34.\n\n 1562 1 Cor. ii. 10.\n\n 1563 1 Cor. ii. 16.\n\n 1564 Luke xxiv. 45.\n\n 1565 John xvi. 13.\n\n 1566 2 Cor. iv. 13.\n\n 1567 2 Thess. i. 11.\n\n 1568 1 Cor. ii. 5.\n\n 1569 John vi. 44.\n\n 1570 John vi. 65.\n\n 1571 Eph. i. 13.\n\n 1572 2 Cor. i. 21.\n\n 1573 1 Cor. v. 5.\n\n 1574 Psalm xlvi. 1, 2.\n\n 1575 Psalm iii. 5.\n\n 1576 Isaiah xxx. 16.\n\n 1577 Psalm xxxvii. 7.\n\n 1578 Heb. x. 36.\n\n 1579 Eccl. ix. 1.\n\n 1580 Eccl. ix. 2.\n\n 1581 Eccl. iii. 19.\n\n 1582 1 Cor. ii. 12.\n\n 1583 Rom. viii. 14.\n\n 1584 Rom. viii. 16.\n\n 1585 Rom. viii. 9.\n\n 1586 Rom. viii. 11.\n\n 1587 2 Cor. xiii. 5.\n\n 1588 1 John iii. 24.\n\n 1589 Isaiah xliv. 3.\n\n 1590 John xiv. 7.\n\n 1591 Rom. viii. 38.\n\n 1592 1 Cor. x. 12.\n\n 1593 Heb. xi. 1.\n\n 1594 Rom. viii. 24.\n\n 1595 Lombard.\n\n 1596 Bernard. Serm. I. in Annunciat.\n\n 1597 Rom. viii. 24.\n\n 1598 Heb. ii. 3.\n\n 1599 Isaiah viii. 17.\n\n 1600 2 Pet. iii. 4.\n\n 1601 Psalm xc. 4. 2 Pet. iii. 8.\n\n 1602 1 Pet. i. 5.\n\n 1603 1 Pet. i. 21.\n\n 1604 Phil. i. 20.\n\n 1605 Heb. x. 36.\n\n 1606 Gal. v. 5.\n\n 1607 Matt. ix. 29.\n\n 1608 Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17.\n\n 1609 Acts xx. 21.\n\n 1610 Matt. iii. 2, 3.\n\n 1611 Isaiah xl. 1, 3.\n\n 1612 Psalm cxxx. 4.\n\n 1613 Hos. vi. 1.\n\n 1614 Gen. iv. 13. 1 Sam. xv. 30. Matt. xxvii. 3, 4.\n\n 1615 2 Kings xx. 2. Isaiah xxxviii. 2.\n\n 1616 Jonah iii. 5.\n\n 1617 2 Sam. xxiv. 10.\n\n 1618 2 Sam. xii. 13\u201016.\n\n 1619 Acts ii. 37.\n\n 1620 Acts xx. 21.\n\n 1621 Matt. iii. 2.\n\n 1622 1 Sam. vii. 3.\n\n 1623 Ezekiel xviii. 31.\n\n 1624 Jer. iv. 1, 3, 4.\n\n 1625 Isaiah lviii. 6.\n\n 1626 Jer. iv. 4.\n\n 1627 Acts xvii. 30, 31.\n\n 1628 2 Cor. vii. 10.\n\n 1629 Psalm xxxiv. 14.\n\n 1630 Isaiah i. 16, 17.\n\n 1631 Rom. viii. 7.\n\n 1632 Rom. vi. 5, 6.\n\n 1633 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n\n 1634 Eph. iv. 23, 24.\n\n 1635 Col. iii. 10.\n\n 1636 Eph. v. 26.\n\n 1637 Rom. vi. 6.\n\n 1638 Rom. vii.\n\n 1639 Rom. vi. 12.\n\n 1640 James i. 15.\n\n 1641 2 Cor. xii. 7, 9.\n\n 1642 Rom. vii.\n\n 1643 2 Cor. vii. 11.\n\n 1644 Heb. xii. 3.\n\n 1645 Joel ii. 13.\n\n 1646 James iv. 8.\n\n 1647 2 Cor. vii. 11.\n\n 1648 Joel ii. 12.\n\n 1649 Matt. ix. 15.\n\n 1650 Matt. xi. 21.\n\n 1651 1 Cor. xi. 31.\n\n 1652 Psalm ii. 5.\n\n 1653 Psalm xxv. 7.\n\n 1654 2 Cor. xii. 21.\n\n 1655 Matt. xi. 10.\n\n 1656 Matt. iii. 2.\n\n 1657 Luke iii. 3. Mark i. 4.\n\n 1658 Mark i. 15.\n\n 1659 Luke xxiv. 46, 47.\n\n 1660 Acts v. 31.\n\n 1661 1 Cor. i. 30.\n\n 1662 Isaiah lxi. 1. Matt. xi 5. Luke iv. 18.\n\n 1663 Matt. ix. 13.\n\n 1664 Acts iii. 26.\n\n 1665 Isaiah lvi. 1.\n\n 1666 Isaiah lix. 20.\n\n 1667 Isaiah lv. 6, 7.\n\n 1668 Acts iii. 19.\n\n 1669 Acts xi. 18.\n\n 1670 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26.\n\n 1671 Eph. ii. 10.\n\n 1672 Isaiah lix. 20.\n\n 1673 Isaiah lxiii. 17.\n\n 1674 Heb. vi. 4.\n\n 1675 Heb. x. 29.\n\n 1676 Heb. vi. 4\u20106.\n\n 1677 Heb. x. 26, 27.\n\n 1678 Matt. xii. 31, 32. Mark iii. 28, 29. Luke xii. 10.\n\n 1679 Matt. xii. 32.\n\n 1680 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1, Matt. xii. 31.\n\n 1681 Acts vi. 10.\n\n 1682 Matt. ix. 34; xii. 24.\n\n 1683 1 Tim. i. 13.\n\n 1684 1 John ii. 19.\n\n 1685 Heb. vi. 4\u20106.\n\n 1686 Heb. x. 26.\n\n 1687 Jer. xi. 11.\n\n 1688 Ezek. xviii. 21.\n\n 1689 1 Kings xxi. 27, &c.\n\n 1690 Gen. xxvii. 38, 39.\n\n 1691 Psalm lxxviii. 36, 37.\n\n 1692 2 Cor. vii. 10.\n\n 1693 Matt. xi. 28. Luke iv. 18. Isaiah lxi. 1, &c.\n\n 1694 Gen. iii. 9, 12.\n\n 1695 Heb. vii. 12.\n\n 1696 Matt. viii. 4. Luke v. 14; xvii. 14. Lev. xiv. 2, &c.\n\n 1697 Matt. xxiv. 14.\n\n 1698 Matt. x. 18.\n\n 1699 John xi. 44.\n\n 1700 Matt. iii. 6.\n\n 1701 James v. 16.\n\n 1702 Gal. iii. 22. Rom. iii. 9, 19.\n\n 1703 Psalm xlii. 4.\n\n 1704 Psalm xxxii. 5.\n\n 1705 Psalm li. 1.\n\n 1706 Dan. ix. 5.\n\n 1707 1 John i. 9.\n\n 1708 2 Sam. xii. 13.\n\n 1709 Lev. xvi. 21.\n\n 1710 James v. 16.\n\n 1711 Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18. John xx. 23.\n\n 1712 Matt. v. 23, 24.\n\n 1713 2 Cor. ii. 6.\n\n 1714 Matt. xviii. 18. John xx. 23.\n\n 1715 Matt. ix. 2.\n\n 1716 Matt. xviii. 18.\n\n 1717 Isaiah xliii. 11, 25.\n\n 1718 Psalm xix. 12.\n\n 1719 Psalm lxxxviii. 15.\n\n 1720 Psalm cxliii. 3, 4.\n\n 1721 Psalm cxvi. 3.\n\n 1722 Psalm lxix. 2, 14.\n\n 1723 1 John iii. 20.\n\n 1724 Luke xviii. 13.\n\n 1725 Psalm xix. 12.\n\n 1726 1 Peter i. 23.\n\n 1727 Ezek. xviii. 21, 22.\n\n 1728 Prov. xxx. 20.\n\n 1729 Matt. xviii. 18.\n\n 1730 1 Cor. vi. 9\u201011.\n\n 1731 Matt. ix. 29.\n\n 1732 Isaiah xliii. 25.\n\n 1733 Acts x. 43.\n\n 1734 2 Cor. v. 19, 21.\n\n 1735 1 Peter ii. 24.\n\n 1736 1 John ii. 1, 2, 12.\n\n 1737 John i. 29.\n\n 1738 Isaiah liii. 5, 6.\n\n 1739 1 Peter ii. 24.\n\n 1740 Rom. viii. 3.\n\n 1741 2 Cor. v. 21, Gal. iii. 13.\n\n 1742 2 Cor. v. 20.\n\n 1743 Col. i. 20.\n\n 1744 Rom. vi. 23, Ezek. xviii. 20.\n\n 1745 Rom. viii. 1.\n\n 1746 Jer. xxxi. 31\u201034.\n\n 1747 Ezek. xviii. 24\u201028.\n\n 1748 Isaiah xxxviii. 17; xliv. 22. Micah vii. 19. Psalm xxxii. 1, 2.\n\n 1749 Isaiah i. 18.\n\n 1750 Jeremiah l. 20.\n\n 1751 Job xiv. 17. Hos. xiii. 12. Jeremiah xvii. 1.\n\n 1752 1 Peter ii. 24.\n\n 1753 Isaiah liii. 6.\n\n 1754 Rom. iii. 24, &c.\n\n 1755 1 Tim. ii. 6.\n\n 1756 Hosea xiv. 2.\n\n 1757 2 Sam. xii. 13, 14.\n\n 1758 Dan. iv. 27.\n\n 1759 Prov. xvi. 6.\n\n 1760 Prov. x. 12. 1 Peter iv. 8.\n\n 1761 Luke vii. 47.\n\n 1762 Job v. 17. Prov. iii. 11. Heb. xii. 5\u201011. Psalm cxviii. 18; cxix.\n      71.\n\n 1763 Jer. x. 24, 25.\n\n 1764 Ps. vi. 1; xxxviii. 1.\n\n 1765 Isaiah xii. 1.\n\n 1766 Hab. iii. 2.\n\n 1767 Micah vii. 9.\n\n 1768 Is. xliii. 28; xlvii. 6.\n\n 1769 Ps. lxxxix. 30\u201033.\n\n 1770 2 Sam. vii. 14.\n\n 1771 Is. xlviii. 10.\n\n 1772 Isaiah i. 5, 6.\n\n 1773 1 Sam. xv. 23.\n\n 1774 2 Sam. xii. 18.\n\n 1775 1 Cor. xi. 32.\n\n 1776 Isaiah xl. 2.\n\n 1777 1 Peter iv. 17. Jer. xxv. 29, marg. read.\n\n 1778 Psalm lxxxviii. 16.\n\n 1779 Psalm xc. 7\u20109.\n\n 1780 Psalm xciv. 12, 13.\n\n 1781 Jer. v. 3.\n\n 1782 Hosea vii. 8.\n\n 1783 Luke xviii. 14.\n\n 1784 Luke xxii. 62.\n\n 1785 Matt. ix. 2.\n\n 1786 Dan. iv. 27.\n\n 1787 Prov. x. 12.\n\n 1788 1 Peter iv. 8.\n\n 1789 Prov. xvi. 6.\n\n 1790 Heb. xiii. 16.\n\n 1791 Luke xi. 39\u201041.\n\n 1792 In Harm. Evang.\n\n 1793 Luke vii. 39.\n\n 1794 Matt. vi. 12.\n\n 1795 Acts x. 43.\n\n 1796 1 John i. 7.\n\n 1797 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1798 1 Cor. i. 13.\n\n 1799 Acts xx. 28.\n\n 1800 Heb. x. 14.\n\n 1801 Rev. vii. 14.\n\n 1802 Col. i. 24.\n\n 1803 Col. i. 24.\n\n 1804 2 Tim. ii. 10.\n\n 1805 2 Cor. i. 6.\n\n 1806 Col. i. 25.\n\n 1807 Rom. v. 17\u201020.\n\n 1808 Acts xv. 11.\n\n 1809 2 Cor. v. 18, &c.\n\n 1810 1 Cor. i. 9.\n\n 1811 Deut. xviii. 10\u201012.\n\n 1812 Matt. xii. 32.\n\n 1813 Matt. v. 25.\n\n 1814 Phil. ii. 10.\n\n 1815 Rom. xiv. 10, 11.\n\n 1816 Rev. v. 13.\n\n 1817 Luke xxiv. 44.\n\n 1818 1 Cor. iii. 12.\n\n 1819 Rom. xiv. 23.\n\n 1820 Rev. xiv. 13.\n\n 1821 Lev. xix. 2. 1 Peter i. 16.\n\n 1822 Isaiah xxxv. 10.\n\n 1823 Psalm xv. 1, 2; xxiv. 3, 4.\n\n 1824 Rom. vi. 4, &c.; viii. 29.\n\n 1825 Eph. iv. 20, &c.\n\n 1826 Rom. xii. 1.\n\n 1827 Eph. iv. 23.\n\n 1828 Gal. ii. 20.\n\n 1829 Titus ii. 11\u201014.\n\n 1830 Rom. xii. 10. Phil. ii. 4.\n\n 1831 1 Cor. iv. 7.\n\n 1832 1 Cor. xiii. 4\u20108.\n\n 1833 Psalm xvi. 2, 3.\n\n 1834 Heb. xiii. 16.\n\n 1835 Gal. vi. 10.\n\n 1836 Isaiah lviii. 7.\n\n 1837 Matt. v. 44.\n\n 1838 Luke xvii. 3, 4.\n\n 1839 Psalm cxxxi. 1, 2.\n\n 1840 Psalm lxxix. 13.\n\n 1841 Matt. xvi. 24.\n\n 1842 Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5.\n\n 1843 Heb. v. 8.\n\n 1844 Rom. viii. 29.\n\n 1845 Acts xiv. 22.\n\n 1846 Phil. iii. 10.\n\n 1847 Psalm xxx. 6, 7.\n\n 1848 Rom. v. 3, 4.\n\n 1849 Gen. xxii. 1, 12.\n\n 1850 1 Peter i. 7.\n\n 1851 Deut. xxxii. 15.\n\n 1852 1 Cor. xi. 32.\n\n 1853 Prov. iii. 11, 12.\n\n 1854 Heb. xii. 8.\n\n 1855 Matt. v. 10.\n\n 1856 Acts v. 41.\n\n 1857 1 Peter iv. 14.\n\n 1858 1 Tim. iv. 10.\n\n 1859 2 Cor. vi. 8.\n\n 1860 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9.\n\n 1861 John xvi. 20.\n\n 1862 Matt. v. 4.\n\n 1863 Luke xxii. 44.\n\n 1864 John xxi. 18.\n\n 1865 2 Cor. v. 6.\n\n 1866 Rom. vii. 24.\n\n 1867 Phil. i. 20.\n\n 1868 Rom. xiv. 7, 8.\n\n 1869 2 Cor. v. 4.\n\n 1870 Titus ii. 13.\n\n 1871 Luke xxi. 28.\n\n 1872 Rom. viii. 36.\n\n 1873 1 Cor. xv. 19.\n\n 1874 Isaiah xxv. 8. Rev. vii. 17.\n\n 1875 2 Thess. i. 6, 7.\n\n 1876 Psalm lxxiii. 2, &c.\n\n 1877 1 Cor. vii. 30, 31.\n\n 1878 Psalm civ. 15.\n\n 1879 Rom. xiii. 14.\n\n 1880 1 Cor. vii. 29, 30, 31.\n\n 1881 Phil. iv. 12.\n\n 1882 Luke xvi. 2.\n\n 1883 Luke vii. 29, 35.\n\n 1884 Luke xvi. 15.\n\n 1885 1 Kings i. 21.\n\n 1886 Gal. iii. 8.\n\n 1887 Rom. iii. 26; iv. 5.\n\n 1888 Rom. viii. 33, 34.\n\n 1889 Acts xiii. 38, 39.\n\n 1890 Luke xviii. 14.\n\n 1891 Eph. i. 5, 6.\n\n 1892 Rom. iii. 24.\n\n 1893 Rom. iv. 6\u20108.\n\n 1894 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.\n\n 1895 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1896 Rom. v. 19.\n\n 1897 Col. ii. 9.\n\n 1898 1 Cor. i. 30.\n\n 1899 Rom. iv. 5.\n\n 1900 Jer. xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 16.\n\n 1901 Acts xx. 28.\n\n 1902 Isaiah liii. 11.\n\n 1903 Rom. v. 19.\n\n 1904 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1905 John xii. 43.\n\n 1906 2 Peter i. 4.\n\n 1907 1 John iii. 2.\n\n 1908 2 Cor. v. 19, 21.\n\n 1909 Rom. iv. 6\u20108.\n\n 1910 Gal. iii. 18.\n\n 1911 Rom. vii. 24.\n\n 1912 Rom. viii. 33, 38, 39.\n\n 1913 Psalm li. 4.\n\n 1914 Exod. xxxiii. 19.\n\n 1915 1 Cor. i. 30.\n\n 1916 Col. ii. 3.\n\n 1917 Mal. iv. 2.\n\n 1918 John viii. 12.\n\n 1919 Gal. iii. 13; iv. 4.\n\n 1920 Heb. ii. 14.\n\n 1921 Phil. ii. 13.\n\n 1922 John xvii. 19.\n\n 1923 Isaiah lix. 17.\n\n 1924 Rom. iii. 24, 25.\n\n 1925 Rom. v. 19.\n\n 1926 Phil. iii. 8, 9.\n\n 1927 Rom. x. 3.\n\n 1928 Rom. iii. 27.\n\n 1929 Rom. iv. 2.\n\n 1930 Rom. iv. 4.\n\n 1931 Rom. x. 5, &c.\n\n 1932 Gal. iii. 11.\n\n 1933 Rom. ii. 13.\n\n 1934 Heb. xi. 6.\n\n 1935 Rom. x. 5, 6, 9.\n\n 1936 Gal. iii. 18.\n\n 1937 Rom. iii. 10, &c.\n\n 1938 Gal. iii. 11, 12.\n\n 1939 Rom. iv. 2, 3.\n\n 1940 Rom. iv. 16.\n\n 1941 Rom. iii. 21.\n\n 1942 Rom. iv. 2.\n\n 1943 Rom. i. 17.\n\n 1944 Rom. iii. 21, 24, 28.\n\n 1945 Gal. iii. 10, 12.\n\n 1946 Rom. iii. 20; iv. 15.\n\n 1947 Gal. iii. 21, 22.\n\n 1948 Gal. iii. 17.\n\n 1949 Rom. iv. 6.\n\n 1950 Gal. v. 6.\n\n 1951 Rom. iv. 4, 5.\n\n 1952 Sect. II.\n\n 1953 Isaiah lix. 1, 2.\n\n 1954 Rom. v. 8\u201010.\n\n 1955 2 Cor. v. 19.\n\n 1956 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1957 Rom. iv. 6\u20108.\n\n 1958 Luke i. 77.\n\n 1959 Acts xiii. 38, 39.\n\n 1960 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\n 1961 Rom. viii. 3, 4.\n\n 1962 Rom. v. 19.\n\n 1963 See particularly the Book of Job.\n\n 1964 Isaiah xxxiii. 14, 15.\n\n 1965 Psalm cxxx. 3.\n\n 1966 Job iv. 17\u201020.\n\n 1967 Job xv. 15, 16.\n\n 1968 Deut. xxvii. 26.\n\n 1969 Luke xvi. 15.\n\n 1970 Psalm cxliii. 2.\n\n 1971 Job ix. 2, 3.\n\n 1972 Acts ix. 15.\n\n 1973 1 Cor. iv. 4.\n\n 1974 Ezek. xxxvi. 22.\n\n 1975 1 Cor. iv. 5.\n\n 1976 Prov. xxi. 2.\n\n 1977 Prov. xvi. 2.\n\n 1978 Job xv. 16; xxv. 4, 6.\n\n 1979 Job xiv. 4.\n\n 1980 Job ix. 20.\n\n 1981 Isaiah liii. 6.\n\n 1982 1 Peter v. 5.\n\n 1983 Psalm xviii. 27.\n\n 1984 Zeph. iii. 11, 12.\n\n 1985 Isaiah lxvi. 2.\n\n 1986 Isaiah lvii. 15.\n\n 1987 Matt. xxiii. 12. Luke xiv. 11; xviii. 14.\n\n 1988 Luke xviii. 13.\n\n 1989 Isaiah lxi. 1\u20103.\n\n 1990 Matt. xi. 28.\n\n 1991 Matt. ix. 13.\n\n 1992 Rom. iii. 26.\n\n 1993 Rom. iii. 19.\n\n 1994 Ezek. xx. 43, 44.\n\n 1995 Jer. ix. 23, 24.\n\n 1996 1 Cor. i. 29\u201031.\n\n 1997 Rom. iii. 19.\n\n 1998 Isaiah xlv. 23\u201025.\n\n 1999 Rom. iii. 26.\n\n 2000 Ephes. i. 6.\n\n 2001 Ephes. ii. 8.\n\n 2002 1 Peter ii. 9.\n\n 2003 Prov. xx. 9.\n\n 2004 Rom. iv. 14.\n\n 2005 Rom. iv. 16.\n\n 2006 Psalm cxix. 76, 77.\n\n 2007 Eccles. ix. 1.\n\n 2008 1 Cor. ii. 16.\n\n 2009 Zech. iii. 9, 10.\n\n 2010 Isaiah ix. 6. Ephes. ii. 14.\n\n 2011 Rom. v. 1.\n\n 2012 Rom. v. 5.\n\n 2013 Rom. viii. 35, &c.\n\n 2014 Psalm xxiii. 4.\n\n 2015 Gal. iv. 6.\n\n 2016 Ephes. iii. 12.","title":"Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":325072}